XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.lang.prolog   
   XPost: comp.software-eng   
   From: news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net   
      
   On 1/10/26 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   So?   
      
   Does it make a diffence, since I showed you started with a lie.   
      
   So, isn't the code of P a finite string.   
      
   I guess you have to resort to diversions since you actual logic just fails.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)