XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net   
      
   On 1/23/26 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 1/23/2026 10:29 AM, dart200 wrote:   
   >> On 1/23/26 2:19 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>> On 1/22/2026 11:21 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>> On 1/22/26 3:58 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>> It is self-evident that a subset of Turing machines   
   >>>>> can be Turing complete entirely on the basis of the   
   >>>>> meaning of the words.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Every machine that performs the same set of   
   >>>>> finite string transformations on the same inputs   
   >>>>> and produces the same finite string outputs from   
   >>>>> these inputs is equivalent by definition and thus   
   >>>>> redundant in the set of Turing complete computations.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Can we change the subject now?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> no because perhaps isolating out non-paradoxical machine may prove a   
   >>>> turing-complete subset of machines with no decision paradoxes,   
   >>>> removing a core pillar in the undecidability arguments.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> FYI, five LLMs have all agreed that I have conquered that.   
   >>   
   >> but no humans have and that's what actually counts   
   >>   
   >   
   > *It really does seem to me that I am a human*   
   >   
   > Also HHH(DD) Really does correctly detect the   
   > non-well-founded cyclic dependency in the   
   > evaluation graph.   
      
   Since DD isn't doing a proof or making a declariation of truth,   
   "non-well-founded" is a meaningless term in this context.   
      
   What is non-well-founded is HHH's determination that DD is non-halting,   
   as it never actually proved it for the given input.   
      
   In part because you don't actually define the input correctly.   
      
   >   
   > https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c   
   >   
   > It has done this for three years now. The only thing   
   > that has changed is the words I use to describe what   
   > it does. This anchors my ideas in the well established   
   > ideas of others. Here are the exactly correct terms:   
   >   
   >    Within well-founded proof theoretic semantics   
   >    anchored in the operational semantics of the   
   >    c programming language HHH(DD) is correct to   
   >    reject its input as non-wellfounded.   
   >   
   >>>   
   >>>> sure maybe that's not the only pillar ... but it's the pillar that   
   >>>> was known about and used the most, so if it was invalid that should   
   >>>> indeed be very exciting   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)