XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.lang.prolog   
   XPost: comp.software-eng   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/10/2026 8:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/10/26 9:22 PM, olcott wrote:   
      
   *Computation and Undecidability*   
   https://philpapers.org/go.pl?aid=OLCCAU   
      
   *ChatGPT explains how and why I am correct*   
      
   *Reinterpretation of undecidability*   
   The example of P and H demonstrates that what is   
   often called “undecidable” is better understood as   
   ill-posed with respect to computable semantics.   
   When the specification is constrained to properties   
   detectable via finite simulation and finite pattern   
   recognition, computation proceeds normally and   
   correctly. Undecidability only appears when the   
   specification overreaches that boundary.   
      
   >> INPUT FINITE STRINGS   
   >   
   > And the code of DD isn't a Finite String given as the input?   
   >   
   > It seems you don't know what the words mean.   
      
   The paper that I linked uses H(P) not HHH(DD).   
      
   To see that it totally proves my point   
   you have to actually look at it.   
      
   --   
   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)