XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   On 14/01/2026 19:28, olcott wrote:   
   > On 1/14/2026 1:40 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >> On 13/01/2026 16:27, olcott wrote:   
   >>> On 1/13/2026 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/01/2026 16:29, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>> On 1/12/2026 4:44 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Its the same thing that I have been saying for years.   
   >>>>> It is not that a universal halt decider cannot exist.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It is proven that an universal halt decider does not exist.   
   >>>   
   >>> “The system adopts Proof-Theoretic Semantics: meaning is determined   
   >>> by inferential role, and truth is internal to the theory. A theory T   
   >>> is defined by a finite set of stipulated atomic statements together   
   >>> with all expressions derivable from them under the inference rules.   
   >>> The statements belonging to T constitute its theorems, and these are   
   >>> exactly the statements that are true-in-T.”   
   >>>   
   >>> Under a system like the above rough draft all inputs   
   >>> having pathological self reference such as the halting   
   >>> problem counter-example input are simply rejected as   
   >>> non-well-founded. Tarski Undefinability, Gödel's   
   >>> incompleteness and the halting problem cease to exist.   
   >>>   
   >>>> A Turing   
   >>>> machine cannot determine the halting of all Turing machines and is   
   >>>> therefore not an universla halt decider.   
   >>>   
   >>> This is not true in Proof Theoretic Semantics. I   
   >>> still have to refine my words. I may not have said   
   >>> that exactly correctly. The result is that in Proof   
   >>> Theoretic Semantics the counter-example is rejected   
   >>> as non-well-founded.   
   >>   
   >> That no Turing machine is a halt decider is a proven theorem and a   
   >> truth about Turing machines. If your "Proof Thoeretic Semnatics"   
   >> does not regard it as true then your "Proof Theoretic Semantics"   
   >> is incomplete.   
   >>   
   >   
   > My long‑term goal is to make ‘true on the basis of meaning’ computable.   
      
   As meaning is not computable, how can "true on the balsis of meaning"   
   be commputable?   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)