XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.lang.prolog   
   XPost: comp.software-eng   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/10/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > On 09/01/2026 17:52, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 1/9/2026 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>> On 08/01/2026 16:22, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 1/8/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>> On 07/01/2026 13:54, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 1/7/2026 5:49 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 07/01/2026 06:44, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> All deciders essentially: Transform finite string   
   >>>>>>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   >>>>>>>> {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> The counter-example input to requires more than   
   >>>>>>>> can be derived from finite string transformation   
   >>>>>>>> rules applied to this specific input thus the   
   >>>>>>>> Halting Problem requires too much.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> In a sense the halting problem asks too much: the problem is   
   >>>>>>> proven to   
   >>>>>>> be unsolvable. In another sense it asks too little: usually we   
   >>>>>>> want to   
   >>>>>>> know whether a method halts on every input, not just one.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Although the halting problem is unsolvable, there are partial   
   >>>>>>> solutions   
   >>>>>>> to the halting problem. In particular, every counter-example to the   
   >>>>>>> full solution is correctly solved by some partial deciders.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> *if undecidability is correct then truth itself is broken*   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Depends on whether the word "truth" is interpeted in the standard   
   >>>>> sense or in Olcott's sense.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Undecidability is misconception. Self-contradictory   
   >>>> expressions are correctly rejected as semantically   
   >>>> incoherent thus form no undecidability or incompleteness.   
   >>>   
   >>> The misconception is yours. No expression in the language of the first   
   >>> order group theory is self-contradictory. But the first order goupr   
   >>> theory is incomplete: it is impossible to prove that AB = BA is true   
   >>> for every A and every B but it is also impossible to prove that AB = BA   
   >>> is false for some A and some B.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> All deciders essentially: Transform finite string   
   >> inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   >> {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>   
   >> When a required result cannot be derived by applying   
   >> finite string transformation rules to actual finite   
   >> string inputs, then the required result exceeds the   
   >> scope of computation and must be rejected as an   
   >> incorrect requirement.   
   >   
   > No, that does not follow. If a required result cannot be derived by   
   > appying a finite string transformation then the it it is uncomputable.   
      
   Right. Outside the scope of computation. Requiring anything   
   outside the scope of computation is an incorrect requirement.   
      
   > Of course, it one can prove that the required result is not computable   
   > then that helps to avoid wasting effort to try the impossible. The   
   > situation is worse if it is not known that the required result is not   
   > computable.   
   >   
   > That something is not computable does not mean that there is anyting   
   > "incorrect" in the requirement.   
      
   Yes it certainly does. Requiring the impossible is always an error.   
   Requiring an answer to a yes/no question that has no correct yes/no   
   answer is an incorrect question that must be rejected.   
      
   > In order to claim that a requirement   
   > is incorrect one must at least prove that the requirement does not   
   > serve its intended purpose.   
      
   Requiring the impossible cannot possibly serve any purpose   
   except perhaps to exemplify one's own ignorance.   
      
   > Even then it is possible that the   
   > requirement serves some other purpose. Even if a requirement serves   
   > no purpose that need not mean that it be "incorrect", only that it   
   > is useless.   
   >   
      
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2026 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-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)