XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/27/2025 10:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/27/25 11:13 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/27/2025 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/27/25 10:01 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/27/2025 8:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/27/25 9:07 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/27/2025 7:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/27/25 8:20 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 12/27/2025 7:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 12/26/25 11:54 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 12/26/2025 10:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/26/25 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Deciders are a pure function of their inputs   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> proving that H(P)==0 is correct and the requirement   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> is not a pure function of the input to H(P)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> is an incorrect requirement within the definition:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> *Deciders are a pure function of their inputs*   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't follow.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> That H generates a 0 result with the input P only says that   
   >>>>>>>>>>> is what H computes.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> H reports on the actual behavior that its   
   >>>>>>>>>> actual finite string input actually specifies   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Then you admit your string was wrong for the question that P   
   >>>>>>>>> was supposed to make, and thus you LIED that you followed the   
   >>>>>>>>> proof.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> All deciders essentially: Transform finite string   
   >>>>>>>>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   >>>>>>>>>> {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Yes, but to be a HALT deciders, that mapping needs to match the   
   >>>>>>>>> HALT function,   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> That mapping does not exist in the input to H(P)   
   >>>>>>>> thus it is an incorrect question for H(P).   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Sure it does, or your H just doesn't support a sufficient language.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Show the mapping that H computes on the basis of the   
   >>>>>> semantics of C to the behavior of UTM(P).   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It doesn't, that is why it is wrong.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> H only computes the mapping that it was programed with, and if that   
   >>>>> isn't the right mapping, it is just wrong.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> H is required to compute a mapping that does not exist.   
   >>>   
   >>> The MAPPING EXISTS.   
   >>>   
   >>> The part it can't compute is [P] -> HALTING, because you defined it   
   >>> to map that input to non-halting.   
   >>>   
   >>> You are just showing you are stupid.   
   >>>   
   >>>> There are no finite string transformation rules from   
   >>>> the input to H(P) to the behavior of UTM(P) that H can   
   >>>> possibly apply to P.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Sure there are,   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> You know that it is categorically impossible   
   >> for any decider H to correctly report on the   
   >> behavior of input P that does the opposite of   
   >> whatever H reports.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > So?   
   >   
   > That is what makes the problem uncomputable. Nothing wrong with that.   
   >   
      
   Likewise the integer square roof of -4 is uncomputable.   
      
   > And that is your problem, you don't understand that some things just   
   > can't be done, even though we may want to do them, and are even allowed   
   > to do it, we just can't.   
   >   
      
   Unfulfilled logical impossibilities are defining   
   a requirement outside the scope of computation.   
      
   Undecidability has always been a misnomer for   
   unfulfilled logical impossibilities.   
      
   It has never been any actual limit to computation.   
   It has always been a requirement outside the scope   
   of computation.   
      
   > Just like no law prohibits you from jumping 1000 feet into the air on   
   > your own, you just aren't able to.   
   >   
   > This is why your statements are just proving your stupidity, you keep on   
   > trying to say that because H can't actually do that, it is incorrect to   
   > set up a problem that asks it, and you pervert the actual definitions of   
   > things to try to make it seem incorrect to do so.   
   >   
   > The problem is, as explained, your statement that deciders perform   
   > finite string transformations, while technical correct, is a basically   
   > worthless statement, as, since you don't try to describe the limits/   
   > methods of transformations allowed, mean you allow ANY transformation,   
   > including the uncomputable ones.   
   >   
   > There IS a "transformation" (literally, a changing) that correctly   
   > converts the string that represents the program P to Halting (correct as   
   > that is what P does when run), so you can't use your "definition" to say   
   > the question is wrong.   
   >   
   > Your problem is you fundamentally don't understand the language of the   
   > field, and seem to be grabbing words at random to put together a jargon   
   > sentence that you try to force to have a meaning it doesn't have.   
   >   
   > The questions that are valid to ask a decider to compute are any total/   
   > complete mapping of input to output.   
   >   
   > Note, this sort of mapping CAN be described as a "transform" too.   
   >   
   > The issue is that computability, requires that the transform can be   
   > built out of a finite sequence of computable atoms of transformation,   
   > namely a description of a Turing Machine. But this seems beyond your   
   > ability to understand.   
   >   
   > It seems part of the problem is you don't understand that H needs to be   
   > *A* program, (as P can't call a set of programs) and thus has *A*   
   > behavior and algorithm, and thus can only do what it is programmed to   
   > do, and thus what it did can't be the criteria for what is allowed, as   
   > it doesn't exist when the question it is designed to answer is posed.   
   >   
   > So, what CAN'T be used as a definition of the criteria is what it ends   
   > up doing, which is what you want to to be the requirement.   
   >   
   > There ARE programs that can correctly compute the answer for this   
   > particular P, this H, the one that P was built on, just isn't one of   
   > them. Thus, the question about this P *IS* computable, just not by this   
   > particular H that gets it wrong.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott

   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make 
   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
   
   reliably computable.

   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation
   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)