XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.software-eng   
   XPost: comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   On 11/01/2026 16:18, olcott wrote:   
   > On 1/11/2026 4:13 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >> On 10/01/2026 17:47, olcott wrote:   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> You can't determine whether the required result is computable before   
   >> you have the requirement.   
   >   
   > *Computation and Undecidability*   
   > https://philpapers.org/go.pl?aid=OLCCAU   
   >   
   > We know that there does not exist any finite   
   > string transformations that H can apply to its   
   > input P to derive the halt status of any P   
   > that does the opposite of whatever H returns.   
      
   Which only nmakes sense when the requirement that H must determine   
   whether the computation presented by its input halts has already   
   been presented.   
      
   > *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.   
      
   It tries to explain but it does not prove.   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)