A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},
where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
The decider outputs Accept if the corresponding property
holds for the input and Reject otherwise.
On 12/23/25 10:34 AM, olcott wrote:
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},
where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
The decider outputs Accept if the corresponding property
holds for the input and Reject otherwise.
Ok, do you understand what this means?
In particular your 2(b) means that whether the MACHINE that the input is
an encoding of will halt when run is a valid property.
Note "when interpreted as a machine description" is NOT limited to the decider itself doing the interpretation, but is a general objective--
property of the input.
Your attempt to convert objective criteria into subjective ones is a fundamental error, showing you don't understand what Truth is.
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},
where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
The decider outputs Accept if the corresponding property
holds for the input and Reject otherwise.
On 12/23/2025 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},
where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset
of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions
a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly
encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the
input itself specifies.
The decider outputs Accept if the corresponding property
holds for the input and Reject otherwise.
On 12/23/2025 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 10:34 AM, olcott wrote:
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},
where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
The decider outputs Accept if the corresponding property
holds for the input and Reject otherwise.
Ok, do you understand what this means?
In particular your 2(b) means that whether the MACHINE that the input
is an encoding of will halt when run is a valid property.
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
Note "when interpreted as a machine description" is NOT limited to the
decider itself doing the interpretation, but is a general objective
property of the input.
Your attempt to convert objective criteria into subjective ones is a
fundamental error, showing you don't understand what Truth is.
On 12/23/25 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 10:34 AM, olcott wrote:
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},
where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
The decider outputs Accept if the corresponding property
holds for the input and Reject otherwise.
Ok, do you understand what this means?
In particular your 2(b) means that whether the MACHINE that the input
is an encoding of will halt when run is a valid property.
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
So, what is wrong with my reading of it?
On 12/23/25 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},
where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset
of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions
a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly
encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the
input itself specifies.
Right, so why does that not apply to the encoding you gave it to
describe P?
If that input DOESN't encode the needed steps, you didn't give it the
right encoding.
On 12/23/2025 10:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},
where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset
of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions
a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly
encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the
input itself specifies.
Right, so why does that not apply to the encoding you gave it to
describe P?
If that input DOESN't encode the needed steps, you didn't give it the
right encoding.
The common meaning of the term "describe" does
not mean specifies an exactly sequence of steps.
(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset
of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions
a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly
encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the
input itself specifies.
Every tiny nuance of meaning of every single word
is required.
On 12/23/2025 10:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 10:34 AM, olcott wrote:
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},
where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
The decider outputs Accept if the corresponding property
holds for the input and Reject otherwise.
Ok, do you understand what this means?
In particular your 2(b) means that whether the MACHINE that the
input is an encoding of will halt when run is a valid property.
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
So, what is wrong with my reading of it?
You derived an incorrect paraphrase on
the basis of ignoring most of the words.
On 12/23/25 12:20 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 10:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 10:34 AM, olcott wrote:
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},
where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
The decider outputs Accept if the corresponding property
holds for the input and Reject otherwise.
Ok, do you understand what this means?
In particular your 2(b) means that whether the MACHINE that the
input is an encoding of will halt when run is a valid property.
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
So, what is wrong with my reading of it?
You derived an incorrect paraphrase on
the basis of ignoring most of the words.
I wasn't "paraphrasing", I was showing a necessary consequence of it.
I guess you are just too stupid to understand LOGIC.
If you can't point out how that doesn't follow, You are just admitting
your whole basis is a LIE.
How can H not be "responsible" of the behavior of the machine the input encodes, when that is explicitly one of the things it IS responsible for.
On 12/23/25 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 10:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},
where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset
of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions
a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly
encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the
input itself specifies.
Right, so why does that not apply to the encoding you gave it to
describe P?
If that input DOESN't encode the needed steps, you didn't give it the
right encoding.
The common meaning of the term "describe" does
not mean specifies an exactly sequence of steps.
But the term-of-art does.
I guess you don't understand how word meaning works.
(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset
of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions
a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly
encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the
input itself specifies.
Every tiny nuance of meaning of every single word
is required.
Right, which EXPLICITLY says that the behavior of the machine encoded
(which is another term for describing) is a valid criteria that a
decider must be able to be asked.
All you are doing is showing your utter stupidity.
And, from your signature:--
My 28 year goal has been to make <br>
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br>
reliably computable.<br><br>
This required establishing a new foundation<br>
If this *IS* your goal, then you need to start a fully new system of
logic to work in (as you said), which means you need to start actually building at the foundation.
You have made the mistake of building on a different foundatation that doesn't support your ideas.
And, after you have made your new foundation, you need to show why it is useful, and what it can do that the existing ones can't.
It seems you don't even understand the basics of what a "foundation" is,
so how can you make a new one?
On 12/23/2025 11:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 10:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},
where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset
of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions
a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly
encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the
input itself specifies.
Right, so why does that not apply to the encoding you gave it to
describe P?
If that input DOESN't encode the needed steps, you didn't give it
the right encoding.
The common meaning of the term "describe" does
not mean specifies an exactly sequence of steps.
But the term-of-art does.
Because is does not directly say that it specifies
an exact sequence of steps: experts in the field
of the theory of computation totally miss the very
subtle nuance THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.
I guess you don't understand how word meaning works.
(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset
of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions
a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly
encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the
input itself specifies.
Every tiny nuance of meaning of every single word
is required.
Right, which EXPLICITLY says that the behavior of the machine encoded
(which is another term for describing) is a valid criteria that a
decider must be able to be asked.
All you are doing is showing your utter stupidity.
It defines P simulated by H as the correct answer.
And, from your signature:
My 28 year goal has been to make <br>
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br>
reliably computable.<br><br>
This required establishing a new foundation<br>
If this *IS* your goal, then you need to start a fully new system of
logic to work in (as you said), which means you need to start actually
building at the foundation.
You have made the mistake of building on a different foundatation that
doesn't support your ideas.
And, after you have made your new foundation, you need to show why it
is useful, and what it can do that the existing ones can't.
It seems you don't even understand the basics of what a "foundation"
is, so how can you make a new one?
On 12/23/2025 11:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 12:20 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 10:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 10:34 AM, olcott wrote:
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},
where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
The decider outputs Accept if the corresponding property
holds for the input and Reject otherwise.
Ok, do you understand what this means?
In particular your 2(b) means that whether the MACHINE that the
input is an encoding of will halt when run is a valid property.
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
So, what is wrong with my reading of it?
You derived an incorrect paraphrase on
the basis of ignoring most of the words.
I wasn't "paraphrasing", I was showing a necessary consequence of it.
I guess you are just too stupid to understand LOGIC.
If you can't point out how that doesn't follow, You are just admitting
your whole basis is a LIE.
How can H not be "responsible" of the behavior of the machine the
input encodes, when that is explicitly one of the things it IS
responsible for.
(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the
subset of finite strings that are valid machine
descriptions a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the
input string, i.e., the behavior that the input
itself specifies.
If you don't apply your bias of certainty that I
am incorrect you will see that the above paragraph
derives that H(P)==0.
computational steps explicitly encoded by the string
IS NOT THE SAME AS
computational steps explicitly encoded by the *input* string
Three different LLMs are able to see that this
subtle little difference CHANGES EVERYTHING.
On 12/23/25 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 11:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 10:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},
where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset
of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions
a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly
encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the
input itself specifies.
Right, so why does that not apply to the encoding you gave it to
describe P?
If that input DOESN't encode the needed steps, you didn't give it
the right encoding.
The common meaning of the term "describe" does
not mean specifies an exactly sequence of steps.
But the term-of-art does.
Because is does not directly say that it specifies
an exact sequence of steps: experts in the field
of the theory of computation totally miss the very
subtle nuance THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.
No, that is the meaning of describe as the term-of-art.
It needs to be a complete description of the algorithm used by the
machine, and that DOES describe, when combined with the input to that machine, the exact sequence of steps the machine will do.
Did you not claim that the x86 instructions of a program are a suitable encoding for the input?
I guess you don't understand how word meaning works.
(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset
of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions
a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly
encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the
input itself specifies.
Every tiny nuance of meaning of every single word
is required.
Right, which EXPLICITLY says that the behavior of the machine encoded
(which is another term for describing) is a valid criteria that a
decider must be able to be asked.
All you are doing is showing your utter stupidity.
It defines P simulated by H as the correct answer.
Nope, where does it say that?
It says the computational steps encoded in the input string. That would
be the UTM processing of the string.
On 12/23/2025 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 11:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 10:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},
where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset
of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions
a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly
encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the
input itself specifies.
Right, so why does that not apply to the encoding you gave it to
describe P?
If that input DOESN't encode the needed steps, you didn't give it >>>>>> the right encoding.
The common meaning of the term "describe" does
not mean specifies an exactly sequence of steps.
But the term-of-art does.
Because is does not directly say that it specifies
an exact sequence of steps: experts in the field
of the theory of computation totally miss the very
subtle nuance THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.
No, that is the meaning of describe as the term-of-art.
It needs to be a complete description of the algorithm used by the
machine, and that DOES describe, when combined with the input to that
machine, the exact sequence of steps the machine will do.
Did you not claim that the x86 instructions of a program are a
suitable encoding for the input?
I guess you don't understand how word meaning works.
(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset
of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions
a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly
encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the
input itself specifies.
Every tiny nuance of meaning of every single word
is required.
Right, which EXPLICITLY says that the behavior of the machine
encoded (which is another term for describing) is a valid criteria
that a decider must be able to be asked.
All you are doing is showing your utter stupidity.
It defines P simulated by H as the correct answer.
Nope, where does it say that?
It says the computational steps encoded in the input string. That
would be the UTM processing of the string.
Maybe you fundamentally cannot pay very close
attention. On the other hand
Individuals with Asperger syndrome often
exhibit exceptional focus and persistence
when pursuing their interests or tasks.
Which has not been renamed to a kind of
attention deficit by the morons in charge.
I have hyper focused attention you have lack of
sufficient attention.
The key solution for this (if one exists) is for
you to read this over and over again until you
can directly see that nothing like the idea of
a UTM or direct execution is ever mentioned or
implied.
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},
where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
The decider outputs Accept if the corresponding property
holds for the input and Reject otherwise.
On 12/23/25 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 11:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 10:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},
where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset
of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions
a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly
encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the
input itself specifies.
Right, so why does that not apply to the encoding you gave it to >>>>>>> describe P?
If that input DOESN't encode the needed steps, you didn't give it >>>>>>> the right encoding.
The common meaning of the term "describe" does
not mean specifies an exactly sequence of steps.
But the term-of-art does.
Because is does not directly say that it specifies
an exact sequence of steps: experts in the field
of the theory of computation totally miss the very
subtle nuance THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.
No, that is the meaning of describe as the term-of-art.
It needs to be a complete description of the algorithm used by the
machine, and that DOES describe, when combined with the input to that
machine, the exact sequence of steps the machine will do.
Did you not claim that the x86 instructions of a program are a
suitable encoding for the input?
I guess you don't understand how word meaning works.
(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset
of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions
a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly
encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the
input itself specifies.
Every tiny nuance of meaning of every single word
is required.
Right, which EXPLICITLY says that the behavior of the machine
encoded (which is another term for describing) is a valid criteria
that a decider must be able to be asked.
All you are doing is showing your utter stupidity.
It defines P simulated by H as the correct answer.
Nope, where does it say that?
It says the computational steps encoded in the input string. That
would be the UTM processing of the string.
Maybe you fundamentally cannot pay very close
attention. On the other hand
Individuals with Asperger syndrome often
exhibit exceptional focus and persistence
when pursuing their interests or tasks.
Which has not been renamed to a kind of
attention deficit by the morons in charge.
I have hyper focused attention you have lack of
sufficient attention.
No, you are just ignoring the fact that you have been showen to be
wrong, and not figuring out how to respond, just fall back to your
normal proceedure of ignoring your error and repeating your false claim.
The key solution for this (if one exists) is for
you to read this over and over again until you
can directly see that nothing like the idea of
a UTM or direct execution is ever mentioned or
implied.
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},
where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
The decider outputs Accept if the corresponding property
holds for the input and Reject otherwise.
So, it seems you can't point out where I aaid something wrong, just
repeated the statement which I showed you what it means.
On 12/23/2025 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 11:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 10:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},
where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset
of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions
a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly >>>>>>>>> encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the
input itself specifies.
Right, so why does that not apply to the encoding you gave it to >>>>>>>> describe P?
If that input DOESN't encode the needed steps, you didn't give >>>>>>>> it the right encoding.
The common meaning of the term "describe" does
not mean specifies an exactly sequence of steps.
But the term-of-art does.
Because is does not directly say that it specifies
an exact sequence of steps: experts in the field
of the theory of computation totally miss the very
subtle nuance THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.
No, that is the meaning of describe as the term-of-art.
It needs to be a complete description of the algorithm used by the
machine, and that DOES describe, when combined with the input to
that machine, the exact sequence of steps the machine will do.
Did you not claim that the x86 instructions of a program are a
suitable encoding for the input?
I guess you don't understand how word meaning works.
(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset
of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions
a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly
encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the
input itself specifies.
Every tiny nuance of meaning of every single word
is required.
Right, which EXPLICITLY says that the behavior of the machine
encoded (which is another term for describing) is a valid criteria >>>>>> that a decider must be able to be asked.
All you are doing is showing your utter stupidity.
It defines P simulated by H as the correct answer.
Nope, where does it say that?
It says the computational steps encoded in the input string. That
would be the UTM processing of the string.
Maybe you fundamentally cannot pay very close
attention. On the other hand
Individuals with Asperger syndrome often
exhibit exceptional focus and persistence
when pursuing their interests or tasks.
Which has not been renamed to a kind of
attention deficit by the morons in charge.
I have hyper focused attention you have lack of
sufficient attention.
No, you are just ignoring the fact that you have been showen to be
wrong, and not figuring out how to respond, just fall back to your
normal proceedure of ignoring your error and repeating your false claim.
The key solution for this (if one exists) is for
you to read this over and over again until you
can directly see that nothing like the idea of
a UTM or direct execution is ever mentioned or
implied.
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},
where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
The decider outputs Accept if the corresponding property
holds for the input and Reject otherwise.
So, it seems you can't point out where I aaid something wrong, just
repeated the statement which I showed you what it means.
Maybe formal correctness is too overwhelming.
(1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
(2) Any required value that cannot be derived by applying
finite string transformation rules to finite string inputs
is outside of the scope of computation.
On 12/23/25 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 11:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 10:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject}, >>>>>>>>>>> where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of >>>>>>>>>>> computational steps explicitly encoded by the input >>>>>>>>>>> string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description. >>>>>>>>>>
of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions
a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly >>>>>>>>>> encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the
input itself specifies.
Right, so why does that not apply to the encoding you gave it >>>>>>>>> to describe P?
If that input DOESN't encode the needed steps, you didn't give >>>>>>>>> it the right encoding.
The common meaning of the term "describe" does
not mean specifies an exactly sequence of steps.
But the term-of-art does.
Because is does not directly say that it specifies
an exact sequence of steps: experts in the field
of the theory of computation totally miss the very
subtle nuance THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.
No, that is the meaning of describe as the term-of-art.
It needs to be a complete description of the algorithm used by the
machine, and that DOES describe, when combined with the input to
that machine, the exact sequence of steps the machine will do.
Did you not claim that the x86 instructions of a program are a
suitable encoding for the input?
I guess you don't understand how word meaning works.
(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset
of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions
a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly
encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the
input itself specifies.
Every tiny nuance of meaning of every single word
is required.
Right, which EXPLICITLY says that the behavior of the machine
encoded (which is another term for describing) is a valid
criteria that a decider must be able to be asked.
All you are doing is showing your utter stupidity.
It defines P simulated by H as the correct answer.
Nope, where does it say that?
It says the computational steps encoded in the input string. That
would be the UTM processing of the string.
Maybe you fundamentally cannot pay very close
attention. On the other hand
Individuals with Asperger syndrome often
exhibit exceptional focus and persistence
when pursuing their interests or tasks.
Which has not been renamed to a kind of
attention deficit by the morons in charge.
I have hyper focused attention you have lack of
sufficient attention.
No, you are just ignoring the fact that you have been showen to be
wrong, and not figuring out how to respond, just fall back to your
normal proceedure of ignoring your error and repeating your false claim. >>>
The key solution for this (if one exists) is for
you to read this over and over again until you
can directly see that nothing like the idea of
a UTM or direct execution is ever mentioned or
implied.
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},
where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
The decider outputs Accept if the corresponding property
holds for the input and Reject otherwise.
So, it seems you can't point out where I aaid something wrong, just
repeated the statement which I showed you what it means.
Maybe formal correctness is too overwhelming.
Yes, it seems to have overwhelmed you.
You didn't respond to my explanation, so I guess you are just admitting
that you removed my CORRECT description and agree to it.
(1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
(2) Any required value that cannot be derived by applying
finite string transformation rules to finite string inputs
is outside of the scope of computation.
And since the halting behavior of the encoded P was derived by such a transformation, it was correct and you ADMIT you have LIED.
If you try to claim I haven't shown this, you are just a liar, as you
just intentionally trimed of that explaination and accepted it without comment.
Sorry, you are annalated your credibility and your reputation.
On 12/23/2025 9:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 11:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 10:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject}, >>>>>>>>>>>> where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗, >>>>>>>>>>>> D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of >>>>>>>>>>>> computational steps explicitly encoded by the input >>>>>>>>>>>> string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description. >>>>>>>>>>>
of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions
a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly >>>>>>>>>>> encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the >>>>>>>>>>> input itself specifies.
Right, so why does that not apply to the encoding you gave it >>>>>>>>>> to describe P?
If that input DOESN't encode the needed steps, you didn't give >>>>>>>>>> it the right encoding.
The common meaning of the term "describe" does
not mean specifies an exactly sequence of steps.
But the term-of-art does.
Because is does not directly say that it specifies
an exact sequence of steps: experts in the field
of the theory of computation totally miss the very
subtle nuance THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.
No, that is the meaning of describe as the term-of-art.
It needs to be a complete description of the algorithm used by the >>>>>> machine, and that DOES describe, when combined with the input to
that machine, the exact sequence of steps the machine will do.
Did you not claim that the x86 instructions of a program are a
suitable encoding for the input?
I guess you don't understand how word meaning works.
(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset
of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions
a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly >>>>>>>>> encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the
input itself specifies.
Every tiny nuance of meaning of every single word
is required.
Right, which EXPLICITLY says that the behavior of the machine >>>>>>>> encoded (which is another term for describing) is a valid
criteria that a decider must be able to be asked.
All you are doing is showing your utter stupidity.
It defines P simulated by H as the correct answer.
Nope, where does it say that?
It says the computational steps encoded in the input string. That >>>>>> would be the UTM processing of the string.
Maybe you fundamentally cannot pay very close
attention. On the other hand
Individuals with Asperger syndrome often
exhibit exceptional focus and persistence
when pursuing their interests or tasks.
Which has not been renamed to a kind of
attention deficit by the morons in charge.
I have hyper focused attention you have lack of
sufficient attention.
No, you are just ignoring the fact that you have been showen to be
wrong, and not figuring out how to respond, just fall back to your
normal proceedure of ignoring your error and repeating your false
claim.
The key solution for this (if one exists) is for
you to read this over and over again until you
can directly see that nothing like the idea of
a UTM or direct execution is ever mentioned or
implied.
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},
where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
The decider outputs Accept if the corresponding property
holds for the input and Reject otherwise.
So, it seems you can't point out where I aaid something wrong, just
repeated the statement which I showed you what it means.
Maybe formal correctness is too overwhelming.
Yes, it seems to have overwhelmed you.
You didn't respond to my explanation, so I guess you are just
admitting that you removed my CORRECT description and agree to it.
(1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
(2) Any required value that cannot be derived by applying
finite string transformation rules to finite string inputs
is outside of the scope of computation.
And since the halting behavior of the encoded P was derived by such a
transformation, it was correct and you ADMIT you have LIED.
Transform finite string
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
If you try to claim I haven't shown this, you are just a liar, as you
just intentionally trimed of that explaination and accepted it without
comment.
Sorry, you are annalated your credibility and your reputation.
On 12/23/25 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 11:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 10:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset >>>>>>>>>>>> of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject}, >>>>>>>>>>>>> where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the >>>>>>>>>>>>> input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗, >>>>>>>>>>>>> D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input >>>>>>>>>>>>> string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of >>>>>>>>>>>>> computational steps explicitly encoded by the input >>>>>>>>>>>>> string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself >>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies when interpreted as a machine description. >>>>>>>>>>>>
a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly >>>>>>>>>>>> encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the >>>>>>>>>>>> input itself specifies.
Right, so why does that not apply to the encoding you gave it >>>>>>>>>>> to describe P?
If that input DOESN't encode the needed steps, you didn't >>>>>>>>>>> give it the right encoding.
The common meaning of the term "describe" does
not mean specifies an exactly sequence of steps.
But the term-of-art does.
Because is does not directly say that it specifies
an exact sequence of steps: experts in the field
of the theory of computation totally miss the very
subtle nuance THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.
No, that is the meaning of describe as the term-of-art.
It needs to be a complete description of the algorithm used by
the machine, and that DOES describe, when combined with the input >>>>>>> to that machine, the exact sequence of steps the machine will do. >>>>>>>
Did you not claim that the x86 instructions of a program are a
suitable encoding for the input?
I guess you don't understand how word meaning works.
(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset
of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions
a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly >>>>>>>>>> encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the
input itself specifies.
Every tiny nuance of meaning of every single word
is required.
Right, which EXPLICITLY says that the behavior of the machine >>>>>>>>> encoded (which is another term for describing) is a valid
criteria that a decider must be able to be asked.
All you are doing is showing your utter stupidity.
It defines P simulated by H as the correct answer.
Nope, where does it say that?
It says the computational steps encoded in the input string. That >>>>>>> would be the UTM processing of the string.
Maybe you fundamentally cannot pay very close
attention. On the other hand
Individuals with Asperger syndrome often
exhibit exceptional focus and persistence
when pursuing their interests or tasks.
Which has not been renamed to a kind of
attention deficit by the morons in charge.
I have hyper focused attention you have lack of
sufficient attention.
No, you are just ignoring the fact that you have been showen to be
wrong, and not figuring out how to respond, just fall back to your
normal proceedure of ignoring your error and repeating your false
claim.
The key solution for this (if one exists) is for
you to read this over and over again until you
can directly see that nothing like the idea of
a UTM or direct execution is ever mentioned or
implied.
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},
where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
The decider outputs Accept if the corresponding property
holds for the input and Reject otherwise.
So, it seems you can't point out where I aaid something wrong, just >>>>> repeated the statement which I showed you what it means.
Maybe formal correctness is too overwhelming.
Yes, it seems to have overwhelmed you.
You didn't respond to my explanation, so I guess you are just
admitting that you removed my CORRECT description and agree to it.
(1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
(2) Any required value that cannot be derived by applying
finite string transformation rules to finite string inputs
is outside of the scope of computation.
And since the halting behavior of the encoded P was derived by such a
transformation, it was correct and you ADMIT you have LIED.
Transform finite string
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Right, which I showed, but apparently due to your ignorance, you can't understand.
[...]
P simulated by H derives recursive simulation
P simulated by H1 halts
That there are no finite string transformations
from the input to H(P) to the behavior of H1(P)
means that the behavior of H1(P) is outside the
scope of computation for H.
Clause AI and ChatGPT always start from scratch
with no knowledge of prior conversations. They
have agreed with me on this a dozen times each
only because they can apply the laser focused
attention that I can apply.
On 12/23/2025 10:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 11:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 10:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject}, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> input alphabet. That is:(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset >>>>>>>>>>>>> of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions >>>>>>>>>>>>> a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly >>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the >>>>>>>>>>>>> input itself specifies.
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>> string itself, such as containing a particular >>>>>>>>>>>>>> substring or satisfying a structural pattern. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computational steps explicitly encoded by the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>> string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies when interpreted as a machine description. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Right, so why does that not apply to the encoding you gave >>>>>>>>>>>> it to describe P?
If that input DOESN't encode the needed steps, you didn't >>>>>>>>>>>> give it the right encoding.
The common meaning of the term "describe" does
not mean specifies an exactly sequence of steps.
But the term-of-art does.
Because is does not directly say that it specifies
an exact sequence of steps: experts in the field
of the theory of computation totally miss the very
subtle nuance THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.
No, that is the meaning of describe as the term-of-art.
It needs to be a complete description of the algorithm used by >>>>>>>> the machine, and that DOES describe, when combined with the
input to that machine, the exact sequence of steps the machine >>>>>>>> will do.
Did you not claim that the x86 instructions of a program are a >>>>>>>> suitable encoding for the input?
I guess you don't understand how word meaning works.
(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset
of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions
a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly >>>>>>>>>>> encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the >>>>>>>>>>> input itself specifies.
Every tiny nuance of meaning of every single word
is required.
Right, which EXPLICITLY says that the behavior of the machine >>>>>>>>>> encoded (which is another term for describing) is a valid >>>>>>>>>> criteria that a decider must be able to be asked.
All you are doing is showing your utter stupidity.
It defines P simulated by H as the correct answer.
Nope, where does it say that?
It says the computational steps encoded in the input string.
That would be the UTM processing of the string.
Maybe you fundamentally cannot pay very close
attention. On the other hand
Individuals with Asperger syndrome often
exhibit exceptional focus and persistence
when pursuing their interests or tasks.
Which has not been renamed to a kind of
attention deficit by the morons in charge.
I have hyper focused attention you have lack of
sufficient attention.
No, you are just ignoring the fact that you have been showen to be >>>>>> wrong, and not figuring out how to respond, just fall back to your >>>>>> normal proceedure of ignoring your error and repeating your false >>>>>> claim.
The key solution for this (if one exists) is for
you to read this over and over again until you
can directly see that nothing like the idea of
a UTM or direct execution is ever mentioned or
implied.
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},
where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
The decider outputs Accept if the corresponding property
holds for the input and Reject otherwise.
So, it seems you can't point out where I aaid something wrong,
just repeated the statement which I showed you what it means.
Maybe formal correctness is too overwhelming.
Yes, it seems to have overwhelmed you.
You didn't respond to my explanation, so I guess you are just
admitting that you removed my CORRECT description and agree to it.
(1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
(2) Any required value that cannot be derived by applying
finite string transformation rules to finite string inputs
is outside of the scope of computation.
And since the halting behavior of the encoded P was derived by such
a transformation, it was correct and you ADMIT you have LIED.
Transform finite string
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Right, which I showed, but apparently due to your ignorance, you can't
understand.
P simulated by H derives recursive simulation
P simulated by H1 halts
That there are no finite string transformations
from the input to H(P) to the behavior of H1(P)
means that the behavior of H1(P) is outside the
scope of computation for H.
Clause AI and ChatGPT always start from scratch
with no knowledge of prior conversations. They
have agreed with me on this a dozen times each
only because they can apply the laser focused
attention that I can apply.
On 12/23/25 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 10:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 11:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 10:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject}, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input alphabet. That is:(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> input itself specifies.
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string itself, such as containing a particular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substring or satisfying a structural pattern. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computational steps explicitly encoded by the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies when interpreted as a machine description. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Right, so why does that not apply to the encoding you gave >>>>>>>>>>>>> it to describe P?
If that input DOESN't encode the needed steps, you didn't >>>>>>>>>>>>> give it the right encoding.
The common meaning of the term "describe" does
not mean specifies an exactly sequence of steps.
But the term-of-art does.
Because is does not directly say that it specifies
an exact sequence of steps: experts in the field
of the theory of computation totally miss the very
subtle nuance THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.
No, that is the meaning of describe as the term-of-art.
It needs to be a complete description of the algorithm used by >>>>>>>>> the machine, and that DOES describe, when combined with the >>>>>>>>> input to that machine, the exact sequence of steps the machine >>>>>>>>> will do.
Did you not claim that the x86 instructions of a program are a >>>>>>>>> suitable encoding for the input?
I guess you don't understand how word meaning works.
(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset >>>>>>>>>>>> of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions
a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly >>>>>>>>>>>> encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the >>>>>>>>>>>> input itself specifies.
Every tiny nuance of meaning of every single word
is required.
Right, which EXPLICITLY says that the behavior of the machine >>>>>>>>>>> encoded (which is another term for describing) is a valid >>>>>>>>>>> criteria that a decider must be able to be asked.
All you are doing is showing your utter stupidity.
It defines P simulated by H as the correct answer.
Nope, where does it say that?
It says the computational steps encoded in the input string. >>>>>>>>> That would be the UTM processing of the string.
Maybe you fundamentally cannot pay very close
attention. On the other hand
Individuals with Asperger syndrome often
exhibit exceptional focus and persistence
when pursuing their interests or tasks.
Which has not been renamed to a kind of
attention deficit by the morons in charge.
I have hyper focused attention you have lack of
sufficient attention.
No, you are just ignoring the fact that you have been showen to >>>>>>> be wrong, and not figuring out how to respond, just fall back to >>>>>>> your normal proceedure of ignoring your error and repeating your >>>>>>> false claim.
The key solution for this (if one exists) is for
you to read this over and over again until you
can directly see that nothing like the idea of
a UTM or direct execution is ever mentioned or
implied.
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},
where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
The decider outputs Accept if the corresponding property
holds for the input and Reject otherwise.
So, it seems you can't point out where I aaid something wrong,
just repeated the statement which I showed you what it means.
Maybe formal correctness is too overwhelming.
Yes, it seems to have overwhelmed you.
You didn't respond to my explanation, so I guess you are just
admitting that you removed my CORRECT description and agree to it.
(1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
(2) Any required value that cannot be derived by applying
finite string transformation rules to finite string inputs
is outside of the scope of computation.
And since the halting behavior of the encoded P was derived by such >>>>> a transformation, it was correct and you ADMIT you have LIED.
Transform finite string
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Right, which I showed, but apparently due to your ignorance, you
can't understand.
P simulated by H derives recursive simulation
But only finitely, for this H, then it halts.
On 12/24/2025 6:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 10:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 11:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 10:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject}, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input alphabet. That is:(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input itself specifies.
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string itself, such as containing a particular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substring or satisfying a structural pattern. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computational steps explicitly encoded by the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies when interpreted as a machine description. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Right, so why does that not apply to the encoding you gave >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it to describe P?
If that input DOESN't encode the needed steps, you didn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> give it the right encoding.
The common meaning of the term "describe" does
not mean specifies an exactly sequence of steps.
But the term-of-art does.
Because is does not directly say that it specifies
an exact sequence of steps: experts in the field
of the theory of computation totally miss the very
subtle nuance THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.
No, that is the meaning of describe as the term-of-art.
It needs to be a complete description of the algorithm used by >>>>>>>>>> the machine, and that DOES describe, when combined with the >>>>>>>>>> input to that machine, the exact sequence of steps the machine >>>>>>>>>> will do.
Did you not claim that the x86 instructions of a program are a >>>>>>>>>> suitable encoding for the input?
I guess you don't understand how word meaning works.
(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset >>>>>>>>>>>>> of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions >>>>>>>>>>>>> a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly >>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the >>>>>>>>>>>>> input itself specifies.
Every tiny nuance of meaning of every single word
is required.
Right, which EXPLICITLY says that the behavior of the >>>>>>>>>>>> machine encoded (which is another term for describing) is a >>>>>>>>>>>> valid criteria that a decider must be able to be asked. >>>>>>>>>>>>
All you are doing is showing your utter stupidity.
It defines P simulated by H as the correct answer.
Nope, where does it say that?
It says the computational steps encoded in the input string. >>>>>>>>>> That would be the UTM processing of the string.
Maybe you fundamentally cannot pay very close
attention. On the other hand
Individuals with Asperger syndrome often
exhibit exceptional focus and persistence
when pursuing their interests or tasks.
Which has not been renamed to a kind of
attention deficit by the morons in charge.
I have hyper focused attention you have lack of
sufficient attention.
No, you are just ignoring the fact that you have been showen to >>>>>>>> be wrong, and not figuring out how to respond, just fall back to >>>>>>>> your normal proceedure of ignoring your error and repeating your >>>>>>>> false claim.
The key solution for this (if one exists) is for
you to read this over and over again until you
can directly see that nothing like the idea of
a UTM or direct execution is ever mentioned or
implied.
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},
where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
The decider outputs Accept if the corresponding property
holds for the input and Reject otherwise.
So, it seems you can't point out where I aaid something wrong, >>>>>>>> just repeated the statement which I showed you what it means.
Maybe formal correctness is too overwhelming.
Yes, it seems to have overwhelmed you.
You didn't respond to my explanation, so I guess you are just
admitting that you removed my CORRECT description and agree to it. >>>>>>
(1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
(2) Any required value that cannot be derived by applying
finite string transformation rules to finite string inputs
is outside of the scope of computation.
And since the halting behavior of the encoded P was derived by
such a transformation, it was correct and you ADMIT you have LIED. >>>>>>
Transform finite string
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Right, which I showed, but apparently due to your ignorance, you
can't understand.
P simulated by H derives recursive simulation
But only finitely, for this H, then it halts.
(1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values
P simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own
final halt state Dumbo.
On 12/24/25 9:48 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/24/2025 6:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 10:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 11:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 10:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject}, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input alphabet. That is:(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a property of the sequence of computational steps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to one of two types of properties: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string itself, such as containing a particular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substring or satisfying a structural pattern. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computational steps explicitly encoded by the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies when interpreted as a machine description. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input itself specifies.
Right, so why does that not apply to the encoding you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gave it to describe P?
If that input DOESN't encode the needed steps, you didn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give it the right encoding.
The common meaning of the term "describe" does
not mean specifies an exactly sequence of steps.
But the term-of-art does.
Because is does not directly say that it specifies
an exact sequence of steps: experts in the field
of the theory of computation totally miss the very
subtle nuance THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.
No, that is the meaning of describe as the term-of-art.
It needs to be a complete description of the algorithm used >>>>>>>>>>> by the machine, and that DOES describe, when combined with >>>>>>>>>>> the input to that machine, the exact sequence of steps the >>>>>>>>>>> machine will do.
Did you not claim that the x86 instructions of a program are >>>>>>>>>>> a suitable encoding for the input?
I guess you don't understand how word meaning works. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> input itself specifies.
Every tiny nuance of meaning of every single word
is required.
Right, which EXPLICITLY says that the behavior of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> machine encoded (which is another term for describing) is a >>>>>>>>>>>>> valid criteria that a decider must be able to be asked. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
All you are doing is showing your utter stupidity.
It defines P simulated by H as the correct answer.
Nope, where does it say that?
It says the computational steps encoded in the input string. >>>>>>>>>>> That would be the UTM processing of the string.
Maybe you fundamentally cannot pay very close
attention. On the other hand
Individuals with Asperger syndrome often
exhibit exceptional focus and persistence
when pursuing their interests or tasks.
Which has not been renamed to a kind of
attention deficit by the morons in charge.
I have hyper focused attention you have lack of
sufficient attention.
No, you are just ignoring the fact that you have been showen to >>>>>>>>> be wrong, and not figuring out how to respond, just fall back >>>>>>>>> to your normal proceedure of ignoring your error and repeating >>>>>>>>> your false claim.
The key solution for this (if one exists) is for
you to read this over and over again until you
can directly see that nothing like the idea of
a UTM or direct execution is ever mentioned or
implied.
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject}, >>>>>>>>>> where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
The decider outputs Accept if the corresponding property
holds for the input and Reject otherwise.
So, it seems you can't point out where I aaid something wrong, >>>>>>>>> just repeated the statement which I showed you what it means. >>>>>>>>>
Maybe formal correctness is too overwhelming.
Yes, it seems to have overwhelmed you.
You didn't respond to my explanation, so I guess you are just
admitting that you removed my CORRECT description and agree to it. >>>>>>>
(1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
(2) Any required value that cannot be derived by applying
finite string transformation rules to finite string inputs
is outside of the scope of computation.
And since the halting behavior of the encoded P was derived by
such a transformation, it was correct and you ADMIT you have LIED. >>>>>>>
Transform finite string
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Right, which I showed, but apparently due to your ignorance, you
can't understand.
P simulated by H derives recursive simulation
But only finitely, for this H, then it halts.
(1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values
P simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own
final halt state Dumbo.
Which isn't the question being asked, showing your stupidity.
On 12/24/2025 9:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/24/25 9:48 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/24/2025 6:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 10:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 11:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 10:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject}, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input alphabet. That is:(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a property of the sequence of computational steps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to one of two types of properties: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string itself, such as containing a particular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substring or satisfying a structural pattern. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computational steps explicitly encoded by the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies when interpreted as a machine description. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input itself specifies.
Right, so why does that not apply to the encoding you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gave it to describe P?
If that input DOESN't encode the needed steps, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't give it the right encoding.
The common meaning of the term "describe" does
not mean specifies an exactly sequence of steps.
But the term-of-art does.
Because is does not directly say that it specifies
an exact sequence of steps: experts in the field
of the theory of computation totally miss the very
subtle nuance THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.
No, that is the meaning of describe as the term-of-art. >>>>>>>>>>>>
It needs to be a complete description of the algorithm used >>>>>>>>>>>> by the machine, and that DOES describe, when combined with >>>>>>>>>>>> the input to that machine, the exact sequence of steps the >>>>>>>>>>>> machine will do.
Did you not claim that the x86 instructions of a program are >>>>>>>>>>>> a suitable encoding for the input?
I guess you don't understand how word meaning works. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input itself specifies.
Every tiny nuance of meaning of every single word >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is required.
Right, which EXPLICITLY says that the behavior of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine encoded (which is another term for describing) is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a valid criteria that a decider must be able to be asked. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All you are doing is showing your utter stupidity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It defines P simulated by H as the correct answer.
Nope, where does it say that?
It says the computational steps encoded in the input string. >>>>>>>>>>>> That would be the UTM processing of the string.
Maybe you fundamentally cannot pay very close
attention. On the other hand
Individuals with Asperger syndrome often
exhibit exceptional focus and persistence
when pursuing their interests or tasks.
Which has not been renamed to a kind of
attention deficit by the morons in charge.
I have hyper focused attention you have lack of
sufficient attention.
No, you are just ignoring the fact that you have been showen >>>>>>>>>> to be wrong, and not figuring out how to respond, just fall >>>>>>>>>> back to your normal proceedure of ignoring your error and >>>>>>>>>> repeating your false claim.
The key solution for this (if one exists) is for
you to read this over and over again until you
can directly see that nothing like the idea of
a UTM or direct execution is ever mentioned or
implied.
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject}, >>>>>>>>>>> where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,
D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
The decider outputs Accept if the corresponding property >>>>>>>>>>> holds for the input and Reject otherwise.
So, it seems you can't point out where I aaid something wrong, >>>>>>>>>> just repeated the statement which I showed you what it means. >>>>>>>>>>
Maybe formal correctness is too overwhelming.
Yes, it seems to have overwhelmed you.
You didn't respond to my explanation, so I guess you are just >>>>>>>> admitting that you removed my CORRECT description and agree to it. >>>>>>>>
(1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
(2) Any required value that cannot be derived by applying
finite string transformation rules to finite string inputs
is outside of the scope of computation.
And since the halting behavior of the encoded P was derived by >>>>>>>> such a transformation, it was correct and you ADMIT you have LIED. >>>>>>>>
Transform finite string
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Right, which I showed, but apparently due to your ignorance, you
can't understand.
P simulated by H derives recursive simulation
But only finitely, for this H, then it halts.
(1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values
P simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own
final halt state Dumbo.
Which isn't the question being asked, showing your stupidity.
It never has been my stupidity my IQ is very high.
It has always your inability to pay 100% complete
attention to every subtle nuance of meaning of every
single word.
I don't know how attention deficit disorder works.
I have the opposite hyper focus super power.
I would estimate (possibly incorrectly) The ADD
could be circumvented in isolated cases by reading
the same words over-and-over many times.
My first principles are not yet completely perfected.
On 12/24/2025 9:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:..
Which isn't the question being asked, showing your stupidity.
It never has been my stupidity my IQ is very high.
It has always your inability to pay 100% complete
attention to every subtle nuance of meaning of every
single word.
I don't know how attention deficit disorder works.
I have the opposite hyper focus super power.
I would estimate (possibly incorrectly) The ADD
could be circumvented in isolated cases by reading
the same words over-and-over many times.
My first principles are not yet completely perfected.
On 12/24/25 10:22 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/24/2025 9:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/24/25 9:48 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/24/2025 6:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 10:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 11:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 10:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:But the term-of-art does.
On 12/23/25 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject}, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input alphabet. That is:(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a property of the sequence of computational steps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to one of two types of properties: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string itself, such as containing a particular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substring or satisfying a structural pattern. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computational steps explicitly encoded by the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies when interpreted as a machine description. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input itself specifies.
Right, so why does that not apply to the encoding you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gave it to describe P?
If that input DOESN't encode the needed steps, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't give it the right encoding.
The common meaning of the term "describe" does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not mean specifies an exactly sequence of steps. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because is does not directly say that it specifies >>>>>>>>>>>>>> an exact sequence of steps: experts in the field
of the theory of computation totally miss the very >>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtle nuance THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.
No, that is the meaning of describe as the term-of-art. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
It needs to be a complete description of the algorithm used >>>>>>>>>>>>> by the machine, and that DOES describe, when combined with >>>>>>>>>>>>> the input to that machine, the exact sequence of steps the >>>>>>>>>>>>> machine will do.
Did you not claim that the x86 instructions of a program >>>>>>>>>>>>> are a suitable encoding for the input?
I guess you don't understand how word meaning works. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a property of the sequence of computational steps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly
encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input itself specifies.
Every tiny nuance of meaning of every single word >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is required.
Right, which EXPLICITLY says that the behavior of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine encoded (which is another term for describing) is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a valid criteria that a decider must be able to be asked. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All you are doing is showing your utter stupidity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It defines P simulated by H as the correct answer.
Nope, where does it say that?
It says the computational steps encoded in the input >>>>>>>>>>>>> string. That would be the UTM processing of the string. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Maybe you fundamentally cannot pay very close
attention. On the other hand
Individuals with Asperger syndrome often
exhibit exceptional focus and persistence
when pursuing their interests or tasks.
Which has not been renamed to a kind of
attention deficit by the morons in charge.
I have hyper focused attention you have lack of
sufficient attention.
No, you are just ignoring the fact that you have been showen >>>>>>>>>>> to be wrong, and not figuring out how to respond, just fall >>>>>>>>>>> back to your normal proceedure of ignoring your error and >>>>>>>>>>> repeating your false claim.
The key solution for this (if one exists) is for
you to read this over and over again until you
can directly see that nothing like the idea of
a UTM or direct execution is ever mentioned or
implied.
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject}, >>>>>>>>>>>> where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the
input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗, >>>>>>>>>>>> D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of
computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description.
The decider outputs Accept if the corresponding property >>>>>>>>>>>> holds for the input and Reject otherwise.
So, it seems you can't point out where I aaid something >>>>>>>>>>> wrong, just repeated the statement which I showed you what it >>>>>>>>>>> means.
Maybe formal correctness is too overwhelming.
Yes, it seems to have overwhelmed you.
You didn't respond to my explanation, so I guess you are just >>>>>>>>> admitting that you removed my CORRECT description and agree to it. >>>>>>>>>
(1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
(2) Any required value that cannot be derived by applying
finite string transformation rules to finite string inputs >>>>>>>>>> is outside of the scope of computation.
And since the halting behavior of the encoded P was derived by >>>>>>>>> such a transformation, it was correct and you ADMIT you have LIED. >>>>>>>>>
Transform finite string
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Right, which I showed, but apparently due to your ignorance, you >>>>>>> can't understand.
P simulated by H derives recursive simulation
But only finitely, for this H, then it halts.
(1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values
P simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own
final halt state Dumbo.
Which isn't the question being asked, showing your stupidity.
It never has been my stupidity my IQ is very high.
It has always your inability to pay 100% complete
attention to every subtle nuance of meaning of every
single word.
No, your IQ is minisule,
as you deceive yourself into thinking you
"know" things, when they have no real basis. You have chosen to forgo
actual logic for the fantasies of your own mind, and you have chosen to ignore reality.
That is the height of stupidity.
I don't know how attention deficit disorder works.
I have the opposite hyper focus super power.
And you "hyper focus" on your delusions, and ignore the facts.
I would estimate (possibly incorrectly) The ADD
could be circumvented in isolated cases by reading
the same words over-and-over many times.
My first principles are not yet completely perfected.
But, until you decide that you are going to be makeing a brand new
system, and accept that your system says nothing about the existing
systems, you don't get to make a "first principle"
Your ignorance is so great, you don't seem to understand this fact.--
Your H may be a partial decider, but it can't be a Halt Decider, as that modifier to the name adds the reqirement that the transformation rules
it uses must produce the same mapping as the already defined "Halting Function", and you aren't allowed to redefine it.
Since your P halts, and you even admit that, H(P) returning 0 is just incorrect, and no amount of attempts to justify it make the wrong answer right, it just shows you don't understand that you are wrong.
All you are doing is proving that you self-imposed ignorance has turned
you into a pathological lying idiot that is too stupid to see his own errors.
On 12/24/2025 9:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/24/25 10:22 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/24/2025 9:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/24/25 9:48 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/24/2025 6:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 10:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 11:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/23/25 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2025 10:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/23/25 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:But the term-of-art does.
On 12/23/2025 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject}, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input alphabet. That is:(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a property of the sequence of computational steps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to one of two types of properties: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string itself, such as containing a particular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substring or satisfying a structural pattern. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computational steps explicitly encoded by the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies when interpreted as a machine description. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input itself specifies.
Right, so why does that not apply to the encoding you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gave it to describe P?
If that input DOESN't encode the needed steps, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't give it the right encoding.
The common meaning of the term "describe" does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not mean specifies an exactly sequence of steps. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because is does not directly say that it specifies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an exact sequence of steps: experts in the field >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the theory of computation totally miss the very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtle nuance THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.
No, that is the meaning of describe as the term-of-art. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It needs to be a complete description of the algorithm >>>>>>>>>>>>>> used by the machine, and that DOES describe, when combined >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the input to that machine, the exact sequence of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps the machine will do.
Did you not claim that the x86 instructions of a program >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are a suitable encoding for the input?
I guess you don't understand how word meaning works. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a property of the sequence of computational steps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly
encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input itself specifies.
Every tiny nuance of meaning of every single word >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is required.
Right, which EXPLICITLY says that the behavior of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine encoded (which is another term for describing) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a valid criteria that a decider must be able to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asked.
All you are doing is showing your utter stupidity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It defines P simulated by H as the correct answer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nope, where does it say that?
It says the computational steps encoded in the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>> string. That would be the UTM processing of the string. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Maybe you fundamentally cannot pay very close
attention. On the other hand
Individuals with Asperger syndrome often
exhibit exceptional focus and persistence
when pursuing their interests or tasks.
Which has not been renamed to a kind of
attention deficit by the morons in charge.
I have hyper focused attention you have lack of
sufficient attention.
No, you are just ignoring the fact that you have been showen >>>>>>>>>>>> to be wrong, and not figuring out how to respond, just fall >>>>>>>>>>>> back to your normal proceedure of ignoring your error and >>>>>>>>>>>> repeating your false claim.
The key solution for this (if one exists) is for
you to read this over and over again until you
can directly see that nothing like the idea of
a UTM or direct execution is ever mentioned or
implied.
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject}, >>>>>>>>>>>>> where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the >>>>>>>>>>>>> input alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗, >>>>>>>>>>>>> D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated
according to one of two types of properties:
(a) Syntactic property: a property of the input
string itself, such as containing a particular
substring or satisfying a structural pattern.
(b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of >>>>>>>>>>>>> computational steps explicitly encoded by the input
string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself
specifies when interpreted as a machine description. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The decider outputs Accept if the corresponding property >>>>>>>>>>>>> holds for the input and Reject otherwise.
So, it seems you can't point out where I aaid something >>>>>>>>>>>> wrong, just repeated the statement which I showed you what >>>>>>>>>>>> it means.
Maybe formal correctness is too overwhelming.
Yes, it seems to have overwhelmed you.
You didn't respond to my explanation, so I guess you are just >>>>>>>>>> admitting that you removed my CORRECT description and agree to >>>>>>>>>> it.
(1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
(2) Any required value that cannot be derived by applying >>>>>>>>>>> finite string transformation rules to finite string inputs >>>>>>>>>>> is outside of the scope of computation.
And since the halting behavior of the encoded P was derived by >>>>>>>>>> such a transformation, it was correct and you ADMIT you have >>>>>>>>>> LIED.
Transform finite string
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
inputs
by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Right, which I showed, but apparently due to your ignorance, you >>>>>>>> can't understand.
P simulated by H derives recursive simulation
But only finitely, for this H, then it halts.
(1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values
P simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own
final halt state Dumbo.
Which isn't the question being asked, showing your stupidity.
It never has been my stupidity my IQ is very high.
It has always your inability to pay 100% complete
attention to every subtle nuance of meaning of every
single word.
No, your IQ is minisule,
By objective measures, a Mensa IQ test I am
in the top 3%. Where are you by these same
objective measures? I would say that you are
at least in the top 20%, maybe much higher.
as you deceive yourself into thinking you "know" things, when they
have no real basis. You have chosen to forgo actual logic for the
fantasies of your own mind, and you have chosen to ignore reality.
It is all a matter of your lack of ability to
pay complete attention. You have never been
able to show the tiniest actual mistake in
anything that I have ever said and prove that
it is an actual mistake with correct reasoning.'
The best that you have every done is show that
what I am saying does not conform to the
convention view.
That is the height of stupidity.
I don't know how attention deficit disorder works.
I have the opposite hyper focus super power.
And you "hyper focus" on your delusions, and ignore the facts.
Your "facts" are the mere dogma of the conventional
view. Expressions of language that are impossibly false
within a definition are derived by applying correct
semantic entailment to this definition.
The is what I have just achieved in the last two weeks.
You have not even shows that you know what
"semantic entailment" is. If you do not
even know what it is then you cannot know
the details of how it works.
I would estimate (possibly incorrectly) The ADD
could be circumvented in isolated cases by reading
the same words over-and-over many times.
My first principles are not yet completely perfected.
But, until you decide that you are going to be makeing a brand new
system, and accept that your system says nothing about the existing
systems, you don't get to make a "first principle"
First principles derived from standard definitions
do not define a new system. They do point out errors
of incoherence in the existing system. The only thing
that seems to be incorrect in the theory of computation
is the notion of undecidability.
Your ignorance is so great, you don't seem to understand this fact.
Your H may be a partial decider, but it can't be a Halt Decider, as
that modifier to the name adds the reqirement that the transformation
rules it uses must produce the same mapping as the already defined
"Halting Function", and you aren't allowed to redefine it.
Since your P halts, and you even admit that, H(P) returning 0 is just
incorrect, and no amount of attempts to justify it make the wrong
answer right, it just shows you don't understand that you are wrong.
All you are doing is proving that you self-imposed ignorance has
turned you into a pathological lying idiot that is too stupid to see
his own errors.
On 12/24/25 10:49 AM, olcott wrote:
By objective measures, a Mensa IQ test I am
in the top 3%. Where are you by these same
objective measures? I would say that you are
at least in the top 20%, maybe much higher.
But it is well know that single test are not an accurate measure of
actual intelligence.
as you deceive yourself into thinking you "know" things, when they
have no real basis. You have chosen to forgo actual logic for the
fantasies of your own mind, and you have chosen to ignore reality.
It is all a matter of your lack of ability to
pay complete attention. You have never been
able to show the tiniest actual mistake in
anything that I have ever said and prove that
it is an actual mistake with correct reasoning.'
No, I pay attention, but you don't.
Your failure to answer the errors pointed out prove that you are not interested in truth, and/or are unable to learn.
The best that you have every done is show that
what I am saying does not conform to the
convention view.
But, your problem is that by the "conventional view" what you meam is
the DEFINED view for the problem you claim to be working in.
You don't understand that changing it and staying in it is not an option.
That is the height of stupidity.
I don't know how attention deficit disorder works.
I have the opposite hyper focus super power.
And you "hyper focus" on your delusions, and ignore the facts.
Your "facts" are the mere dogma of the conventional
view. Expressions of language that are impossibly false
within a definition are derived by applying correct
semantic entailment to this definition.
No, they are the DEFINITION of the system.
It seems you lack the understanding of what is actually true in a system.
The is what I have just achieved in the last two weeks.
You have not even shows that you know what
"semantic entailment" is. If you do not
even know what it is then you cannot know
the details of how it works.
No, your problem is I don't agree to your lies.
I would estimate (possibly incorrectly) The ADD
could be circumvented in isolated cases by reading
the same words over-and-over many times.
My first principles are not yet completely perfected.
But, until you decide that you are going to be makeing a brand new
system, and accept that your system says nothing about the existing
systems, you don't get to make a "first principle"
First principles derived from standard definitions
do not define a new system. They do point out errors
of incoherence in the existing system. The only thing
that seems to be incorrect in the theory of computation
is the notion of undecidability.
But since yours don't, or at least your interpretations of them don't,
the are not valid.
For instance, Halting is an objective measure, and thus NOT based on the deciders own action.
You have not actually pointed out an "incoherence" in the system, as
every claimed incoherence comes AFTER you have added a non-sense rule to
the system.
This is because you just don't know what yo are talking about.
On 12/24/2025 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/24/25 10:49 AM, olcott wrote:
By objective measures, a Mensa IQ test I am
in the top 3%. Where are you by these same
objective measures? I would say that you are
at least in the top 20%, maybe much higher.
But it is well know that single test are not an accurate measure of
actual intelligence.
In other words you know that your IQ is much lower?
I know that you are much higher than the normal of
100 IQ. No one below 100 is stupid. You are at least
some degree of smart. Even 115 IQ is smart, smart
enough to graduate college.
as you deceive yourself into thinking you "know" things, when they
have no real basis. You have chosen to forgo actual logic for the
fantasies of your own mind, and you have chosen to ignore reality.
It is all a matter of your lack of ability to
pay complete attention. You have never been
able to show the tiniest actual mistake in
anything that I have ever said and prove that
it is an actual mistake with correct reasoning.'
No, I pay attention, but you don't.
Your failure to answer the errors pointed out prove that you are not
interested in truth, and/or are unable to learn.
The only "errors" that anyone every pointed out
were never ERRORS in the absolute sense. The
were only "errors" within the assumption that
the conventional view is infallible.
The best that you have every done is show that
what I am saying does not conform to the
convention view.
But, your problem is that by the "conventional view" what you meam is
the DEFINED view for the problem you claim to be working in.
You don't understand that changing it and staying in it is not an option.
The conventional view has several key definitions.
Some of these definitions contradict other definitions
within this same system.
That is the height of stupidity.
I don't know how attention deficit disorder works.
I have the opposite hyper focus super power.
And you "hyper focus" on your delusions, and ignore the facts.
Your "facts" are the mere dogma of the conventional
view. Expressions of language that are impossibly false
within a definition are derived by applying correct
semantic entailment to this definition.
No, they are the DEFINITION of the system.
Yes they are. Yet they contradict other definitions
of this same system and that is their error. You
are smart and capable of understanding me. You did
just bring up a crucially important point.
It seems you lack the understanding of what is actually true in a system.
It never has been this. It probably did seem
like this before I could translate my mere
intuitions into first principles derived from
standard definitions.
The is what I have just achieved in the last two weeks.
You have not even shows that you know what
"semantic entailment" is. If you do not
even know what it is then you cannot know
the details of how it works.
No, your problem is I don't agree to your lies.
My statement was not asking for mere rhetoric.
It asked for you to show that you understand what
"semantic entailment" is and how it works.
When is answered by mere rhetoric this indicates
that you have no clue what "semantic entailment"
is and how it works.
I would estimate (possibly incorrectly) The ADD
could be circumvented in isolated cases by reading
the same words over-and-over many times.
My first principles are not yet completely perfected.
But, until you decide that you are going to be makeing a brand new
system, and accept that your system says nothing about the existing
systems, you don't get to make a "first principle"
First principles derived from standard definitions
do not define a new system. They do point out errors
of incoherence in the existing system. The only thing
that seems to be incorrect in the theory of computation
is the notion of undecidability.
But since yours don't, or at least your interpretations of them don't,
the are not valid.
(1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Here is the same thing more formally and less clearly.
Definition: Turing-Machine Decider D
A Turing-machine decider D is a Turing machine that computes
a total function D : Σ* → {Accept, Reject}. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ*, D
halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
For instance, Halting is an objective measure, and thus NOT based on
the deciders own action.
Not according to the above two definitions.
You have not actually pointed out an "incoherence" in the system, as
every claimed incoherence comes AFTER you have added a non-sense rule
to the system.
This is because you just don't know what yo are talking about.
On 12/24/25 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/24/2025 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/24/25 10:49 AM, olcott wrote:
By objective measures, a Mensa IQ test I am
in the top 3%. Where are you by these same
objective measures? I would say that you are
at least in the top 20%, maybe much higher.
But it is well know that single test are not an accurate measure of
actual intelligence.
In other words you know that your IQ is much lower?
I know that you are much higher than the normal of
100 IQ. No one below 100 is stupid. You are at least
some degree of smart. Even 115 IQ is smart, smart
enough to graduate college.
Various test come out to over 150 (the top for that test) to 180-190.
I know enough of the theory of the test to understand there general unreliability. Also, there are many types of "IQ" that a person will
have different levels in.
as you deceive yourself into thinking you "know" things, when they
have no real basis. You have chosen to forgo actual logic for the
fantasies of your own mind, and you have chosen to ignore reality.
It is all a matter of your lack of ability to
pay complete attention. You have never been
able to show the tiniest actual mistake in
anything that I have ever said and prove that
it is an actual mistake with correct reasoning.'
No, I pay attention, but you don't.
Your failure to answer the errors pointed out prove that you are not
interested in truth, and/or are unable to learn.
The only "errors" that anyone every pointed out
were never ERRORS in the absolute sense. The
were only "errors" within the assumption that
the conventional view is infallible.
No, you don't THINK they are error because they disagree with your preconcieved notions.
THe fact you haven't (probably because you CAN'T) actually refute them
shos that they are errors, that you are just chooing to ignore, because truth isn't a concern of yours.
The best that you have every done is show that
what I am saying does not conform to the
convention view.
But, your problem is that by the "conventional view" what you meam is
the DEFINED view for the problem you claim to be working in.
You don't understand that changing it and staying in it is not an
option.
The conventional view has several key definitions.
Some of these definitions contradict other definitions
within this same system.
So, what are the contradictions?
Are you sure you are using definitions from the same field?
You have shown a remarkable failure to understand the concept of
context, and even a rejection of the concept of the term-of-art.
That is the height of stupidity.
I don't know how attention deficit disorder works.
I have the opposite hyper focus super power.
And you "hyper focus" on your delusions, and ignore the facts.
Your "facts" are the mere dogma of the conventional
view. Expressions of language that are impossibly false
within a definition are derived by applying correct
semantic entailment to this definition.
No, they are the DEFINITION of the system.
Yes they are. Yet they contradict other definitions
of this same system and that is their error. You
are smart and capable of understanding me. You did
just bring up a crucially important point.
Where?
Since you have stated you never actually studied the system, it would be hard for you to actually KNOW the real definitions.
It seems you lack the understanding of what is actually true in a
system.
It never has been this. It probably did seem
like this before I could translate my mere
intuitions into first principles derived from
standard definitions.
Sure it has.
You have ALWAYS been confusing the concept of Truth with the idea of Knowledge, which is why the unprovable is so bothersome to you, as it
points out the distiction that you try to refuse to beleive.
Note, the concepts of Unprovable, Unknowable, Undecidable, Uncomputable
are all tightly tied together, coming in a sense from the same source.
But that this destroyes you bad mental model, you try to (unsucessfully) rebel from these.
Your problem is you
The is what I have just achieved in the last two weeks.
You have not even shows that you know what
"semantic entailment" is. If you do not
even know what it is then you cannot know
the details of how it works.
No, your problem is I don't agree to your lies.
My statement was not asking for mere rhetoric.
It asked for you to show that you understand what
"semantic entailment" is and how it works.
Since you don't understand what semantics mean, because you think you
can change the meaning of words, it will be impossible for you to
understand the meaning of that phrase.
When is answered by mere rhetoric this indicates
that you have no clue what "semantic entailment"
is and how it works.
Part of the problem with that term, is it generally is used in the
context of natural languages, which are actually out of scope of the
formal logic systems you want to be talking about.
It deals with a statement being required to be true as a result of the
basic meaning of the words, but that then requires that the meaning of
the words be properly and consistantly defined.
Formal systems bypass this problem, as their axioms DEFINE the basic
truths of the systems, and their accepted operations the way you can manipulate them, and thus "semantics" boil done to the question of what
can be the results of applying those operations in all possible configurations to those axioms. That BECOMES the meaning in the system.
But that requires you to accept that there ARE rules in the system, and definitions that need to be followed when talking about the system,
which seems to need more IQ then you have.
I would estimate (possibly incorrectly) The ADD
could be circumvented in isolated cases by reading
the same words over-and-over many times.
My first principles are not yet completely perfected.
But, until you decide that you are going to be makeing a brand new
system, and accept that your system says nothing about the existing >>>>> systems, you don't get to make a "first principle"
First principles derived from standard definitions
do not define a new system. They do point out errors
of incoherence in the existing system. The only thing
that seems to be incorrect in the theory of computation
is the notion of undecidability.
But since yours don't, or at least your interpretations of them
don't, the are not valid.
(1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Here is the same thing more formally and less clearly.
Definition: Turing-Machine Decider D
A Turing-machine decider D is a Turing machine that computes
a total function D : Σ* → {Accept, Reject}. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ*, D
halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
For instance, Halting is an objective measure, and thus NOT based on
the deciders own action.
Not according to the above two definitions.
But the above doesn't define what an XXX Decider is.
Note, it talks
NOTHING about what makes a given decider "correct" (a word you don't
seem to understand)
Yes, your H is a decider (if you fix it to always answer), but it isn't
a HALT decider though, as its computed results do not match th Halting function, which IS a valid function to ask about per the definition of a Semantic Property.
You are just showing your ignorance of the langague.
I guess you think you can submit your Persan Cat into the Westminister
Dog Show as that show is for trained animals.
You have not actually pointed out an "incoherence" in the system, as
every claimed incoherence comes AFTER you have added a non-sense rule
to the system.
This is because you just don't know what yo are talking about.
On 12/24/2025 11:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/24/25 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/24/2025 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/24/25 10:49 AM, olcott wrote:
By objective measures, a Mensa IQ test I am
in the top 3%. Where are you by these same
objective measures? I would say that you are
at least in the top 20%, maybe much higher.
But it is well know that single test are not an accurate measure of
actual intelligence.
In other words you know that your IQ is much lower?
I know that you are much higher than the normal of
100 IQ. No one below 100 is stupid. You are at least
some degree of smart. Even 115 IQ is smart, smart
enough to graduate college.
Various test come out to over 150 (the top for that test) to 180-190.
I know enough of the theory of the test to understand there general
unreliability. Also, there are many types of "IQ" that a person will
have different levels in.
as you deceive yourself into thinking you "know" things, when they >>>>>> have no real basis. You have chosen to forgo actual logic for the >>>>>> fantasies of your own mind, and you have chosen to ignore reality. >>>>>>
It is all a matter of your lack of ability to
pay complete attention. You have never been
able to show the tiniest actual mistake in
anything that I have ever said and prove that
it is an actual mistake with correct reasoning.'
No, I pay attention, but you don't.
Your failure to answer the errors pointed out prove that you are not
interested in truth, and/or are unable to learn.
The only "errors" that anyone every pointed out
were never ERRORS in the absolute sense. The
were only "errors" within the assumption that
the conventional view is infallible.
No, you don't THINK they are error because they disagree with your
preconcieved notions.
THe fact you haven't (probably because you CAN'T) actually refute them
shos that they are errors, that you are just chooing to ignore,
because truth isn't a concern of yours.
The best that you have every done is show that
what I am saying does not conform to the
convention view.
But, your problem is that by the "conventional view" what you meam
is the DEFINED view for the problem you claim to be working in.
You don't understand that changing it and staying in it is not an
option.
The conventional view has several key definitions.
Some of these definitions contradict other definitions
within this same system.
So, what are the contradictions?
Are you sure you are using definitions from the same field?
You have shown a remarkable failure to understand the concept of
context, and even a rejection of the concept of the term-of-art.
That is the height of stupidity.
I don't know how attention deficit disorder works.
I have the opposite hyper focus super power.
And you "hyper focus" on your delusions, and ignore the facts.
Your "facts" are the mere dogma of the conventional
view. Expressions of language that are impossibly false
within a definition are derived by applying correct
semantic entailment to this definition.
No, they are the DEFINITION of the system.
Yes they are. Yet they contradict other definitions
of this same system and that is their error. You
are smart and capable of understanding me. You did
just bring up a crucially important point.
Where?
Since you have stated you never actually studied the system, it would
be hard for you to actually KNOW the real definitions.
It seems you lack the understanding of what is actually true in a
system.
It never has been this. It probably did seem
like this before I could translate my mere
intuitions into first principles derived from
standard definitions.
Sure it has.
You have ALWAYS been confusing the concept of Truth with the idea of
Knowledge, which is why the unprovable is so bothersome to you, as it
points out the distiction that you try to refuse to beleive.
Note, the concepts of Unprovable, Unknowable, Undecidable,
Uncomputable are all tightly tied together, coming in a sense from the
same source. But that this destroyes you bad mental model, you try to
(unsucessfully) rebel from these.
Your problem is you
The is what I have just achieved in the last two weeks.
You have not even shows that you know what
"semantic entailment" is. If you do not
even know what it is then you cannot know
the details of how it works.
No, your problem is I don't agree to your lies.
My statement was not asking for mere rhetoric.
It asked for you to show that you understand what
"semantic entailment" is and how it works.
Since you don't understand what semantics mean, because you think you
can change the meaning of words, it will be impossible for you to
understand the meaning of that phrase.
When is answered by mere rhetoric this indicates
that you have no clue what "semantic entailment"
is and how it works.
Part of the problem with that term, is it generally is used in the
context of natural languages, which are actually out of scope of the
formal logic systems you want to be talking about.
It deals with a statement being required to be true as a result of the
basic meaning of the words, but that then requires that the meaning of
the words be properly and consistantly defined.
Formal systems bypass this problem, as their axioms DEFINE the basic
truths of the systems, and their accepted operations the way you can
manipulate them, and thus "semantics" boil done to the question of
what can be the results of applying those operations in all possible
configurations to those axioms. That BECOMES the meaning in the system.
Something that almost no one has the capacity to understand
is that semantics can be fully encoded directly within the
syntax.
But that requires you to accept that there ARE rules in the system,
and definitions that need to be followed when talking about the
system, which seems to need more IQ then you have.
That I can see incoherence that you cannot see would
seem to show an error on my part from your point of
view.
I would estimate (possibly incorrectly) The ADD
could be circumvented in isolated cases by reading
the same words over-and-over many times.
My first principles are not yet completely perfected.
But, until you decide that you are going to be makeing a brand new >>>>>> system, and accept that your system says nothing about the
existing systems, you don't get to make a "first principle"
First principles derived from standard definitions
do not define a new system. They do point out errors
of incoherence in the existing system. The only thing
that seems to be incorrect in the theory of computation
is the notion of undecidability.
But since yours don't, or at least your interpretations of them
don't, the are not valid.
(1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Here is the same thing more formally and less clearly.
Definition: Turing-Machine Decider D
A Turing-machine decider D is a Turing machine that computes
a total function D : Σ* → {Accept, Reject}. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ*, D
halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
For instance, Halting is an objective measure, and thus NOT based on
the deciders own action.
Not according to the above two definitions.
But the above doesn't define what an XXX Decider is.
*It does define the scope of what deciders can do*
*It does define the scope of what deciders can do*
*It does define the scope of what deciders can do*
*It does define the scope of what deciders can do*
*It does define the scope of what deciders can do*
This is the part that you are having great difficulty
understanding.
Note, it talks NOTHING about what makes a given decider "correct" (a
word you don't seem to understand)
Yes, your H is a decider (if you fix it to always answer), but it
isn't a HALT decider though, as its computed results do not match th
Halting function, which IS a valid function to ask about per the
definition of a Semantic Property.
You are just showing your ignorance of the langague.
I guess you think you can submit your Persan Cat into the Westminister
Dog Show as that show is for trained animals.
You have not actually pointed out an "incoherence" in the system, as
every claimed incoherence comes AFTER you have added a non-sense
rule to the system.
This is because you just don't know what yo are talking about.
On 12/24/25 12:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/24/2025 11:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/24/25 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/24/2025 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/24/25 10:49 AM, olcott wrote:
By objective measures, a Mensa IQ test I am
in the top 3%. Where are you by these same
objective measures? I would say that you are
at least in the top 20%, maybe much higher.
But it is well know that single test are not an accurate measure of >>>>> actual intelligence.
In other words you know that your IQ is much lower?
I know that you are much higher than the normal of
100 IQ. No one below 100 is stupid. You are at least
some degree of smart. Even 115 IQ is smart, smart
enough to graduate college.
Various test come out to over 150 (the top for that test) to 180-190.
I know enough of the theory of the test to understand there general
unreliability. Also, there are many types of "IQ" that a person will
have different levels in.
as you deceive yourself into thinking you "know" things, when
they have no real basis. You have chosen to forgo actual logic
for the fantasies of your own mind, and you have chosen to ignore >>>>>>> reality.
It is all a matter of your lack of ability to
pay complete attention. You have never been
able to show the tiniest actual mistake in
anything that I have ever said and prove that
it is an actual mistake with correct reasoning.'
No, I pay attention, but you don't.
Your failure to answer the errors pointed out prove that you are
not interested in truth, and/or are unable to learn.
The only "errors" that anyone every pointed out
were never ERRORS in the absolute sense. The
were only "errors" within the assumption that
the conventional view is infallible.
No, you don't THINK they are error because they disagree with your
preconcieved notions.
THe fact you haven't (probably because you CAN'T) actually refute
them shos that they are errors, that you are just chooing to ignore,
because truth isn't a concern of yours.
The best that you have every done is show that
what I am saying does not conform to the
convention view.
But, your problem is that by the "conventional view" what you meam
is the DEFINED view for the problem you claim to be working in.
You don't understand that changing it and staying in it is not an
option.
The conventional view has several key definitions.
Some of these definitions contradict other definitions
within this same system.
So, what are the contradictions?
Are you sure you are using definitions from the same field?
You have shown a remarkable failure to understand the concept of
context, and even a rejection of the concept of the term-of-art.
That is the height of stupidity.
I don't know how attention deficit disorder works.
I have the opposite hyper focus super power.
And you "hyper focus" on your delusions, and ignore the facts.
Your "facts" are the mere dogma of the conventional
view. Expressions of language that are impossibly false
within a definition are derived by applying correct
semantic entailment to this definition.
No, they are the DEFINITION of the system.
Yes they are. Yet they contradict other definitions
of this same system and that is their error. You
are smart and capable of understanding me. You did
just bring up a crucially important point.
Where?
Since you have stated you never actually studied the system, it would
be hard for you to actually KNOW the real definitions.
It seems you lack the understanding of what is actually true in a
system.
It never has been this. It probably did seem
like this before I could translate my mere
intuitions into first principles derived from
standard definitions.
Sure it has.
You have ALWAYS been confusing the concept of Truth with the idea of
Knowledge, which is why the unprovable is so bothersome to you, as it
points out the distiction that you try to refuse to beleive.
Note, the concepts of Unprovable, Unknowable, Undecidable,
Uncomputable are all tightly tied together, coming in a sense from
the same source. But that this destroyes you bad mental model, you
try to (unsucessfully) rebel from these.
Your problem is you
The is what I have just achieved in the last two weeks.
You have not even shows that you know what
"semantic entailment" is. If you do not
even know what it is then you cannot know
the details of how it works.
No, your problem is I don't agree to your lies.
My statement was not asking for mere rhetoric.
It asked for you to show that you understand what
"semantic entailment" is and how it works.
Since you don't understand what semantics mean, because you think you
can change the meaning of words, it will be impossible for you to
understand the meaning of that phrase.
When is answered by mere rhetoric this indicates
that you have no clue what "semantic entailment"
is and how it works.
Part of the problem with that term, is it generally is used in the
context of natural languages, which are actually out of scope of the
formal logic systems you want to be talking about.
It deals with a statement being required to be true as a result of
the basic meaning of the words, but that then requires that the
meaning of the words be properly and consistantly defined.
Formal systems bypass this problem, as their axioms DEFINE the basic
truths of the systems, and their accepted operations the way you can
manipulate them, and thus "semantics" boil done to the question of
what can be the results of applying those operations in all possible
configurations to those axioms. That BECOMES the meaning in the system.
Something that almost no one has the capacity to understand
is that semantics can be fully encoded directly within the
syntax.
But that requires you to accept that there ARE rules in the system,
and definitions that need to be followed when talking about the
system, which seems to need more IQ then you have.
That I can see incoherence that you cannot see would
seem to show an error on my part from your point of
view.
The fact you can't SHOW it, shows that it likely isn't there.
Your problem is you have PROVEN that you don't understand the material,
and thus any incoherence you think you see is almost certainly an error
on your part.
If you want to try to convince people you are right, you need to show
actual proof of your claims, and root that proof in the actual
definitions of the system, something you have shown you don't actually
know.
I would estimate (possibly incorrectly) The ADD
could be circumvented in isolated cases by reading
the same words over-and-over many times.
My first principles are not yet completely perfected.
But, until you decide that you are going to be makeing a brand
new system, and accept that your system says nothing about the
existing systems, you don't get to make a "first principle"
First principles derived from standard definitions
do not define a new system. They do point out errors
of incoherence in the existing system. The only thing
that seems to be incorrect in the theory of computation
is the notion of undecidability.
But since yours don't, or at least your interpretations of them
don't, the are not valid.
(1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Here is the same thing more formally and less clearly.
Definition: Turing-Machine Decider D
A Turing-machine decider D is a Turing machine that computes
a total function D : Σ* → {Accept, Reject}. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ*, D
halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
For instance, Halting is an objective measure, and thus NOT based
on the deciders own action.
Not according to the above two definitions.
But the above doesn't define what an XXX Decider is.
*It does define the scope of what deciders can do*
*It does define the scope of what deciders can do*
*It does define the scope of what deciders can do*
*It does define the scope of what deciders can do*
*It does define the scope of what deciders can do*
Ok, but not what they can be asked to do.
And, it seems, you don't actually understand what that means.
This is the part that you are having great difficulty
understanding.
No, you confuse ability with requirements.
There is nothing wrong with requirements that turn out to not be
meetable, as long as they are well defined.
This is like you confuse Truth with Knowledge and your brain blows up
when you need to confront their difference.
Note, it talks NOTHING about what makes a given decider "correct" (a
word you don't seem to understand)
Yes, your H is a decider (if you fix it to always answer), but it
isn't a HALT decider though, as its computed results do not match th
Halting function, which IS a valid function to ask about per the
definition of a Semantic Property.
You are just showing your ignorance of the langague.
I guess you think you can submit your Persan Cat into the
Westminister Dog Show as that show is for trained animals.
You have not actually pointed out an "incoherence" in the system,
as every claimed incoherence comes AFTER you have added a non-sense >>>>> rule to the system.
This is because you just don't know what yo are talking about.
On 12/24/2025 12:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/24/25 12:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/24/2025 11:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/24/25 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/24/2025 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/24/25 10:49 AM, olcott wrote:
I would estimate (possibly incorrectly) The ADD
could be circumvented in isolated cases by reading
the same words over-and-over many times.
My first principles are not yet completely perfected.
But, until you decide that you are going to be makeing a brand >>>>>>>> new system, and accept that your system says nothing about the >>>>>>>> existing systems, you don't get to make a "first principle"
First principles derived from standard definitions
do not define a new system. They do point out errors
of incoherence in the existing system. The only thing
that seems to be incorrect in the theory of computation
is the notion of undecidability.
But since yours don't, or at least your interpretations of them
don't, the are not valid.
(1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Here is the same thing more formally and less clearly.
Definition: Turing-Machine Decider D
A Turing-machine decider D is a Turing machine that computes
a total function D : Σ* → {Accept, Reject}. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ*, D
halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
For instance, Halting is an objective measure, and thus NOT based >>>>>> on the deciders own action.
Not according to the above two definitions.
But the above doesn't define what an XXX Decider is.
*It does define the scope of what deciders can do*
*It does define the scope of what deciders can do*
*It does define the scope of what deciders can do*
*It does define the scope of what deciders can do*
*It does define the scope of what deciders can do*
Ok, but not what they can be asked to do.
When-so-ever whatever they are asked to do is outside
the scope of what they can do the requirement itself
is incorrect.
They can be asked to fly to the Moon in ASCII text
encoded a SPACE delimited sequences of binary digits.
"I hereby command you to fly to the Moon."
When they are defined to have the capabilities of
modern LLMs systems they could answer back:
"You must be nuts!"
And, it seems, you don't actually understand what that means.
This is the part that you are having great difficulty
understanding.
No, you confuse ability with requirements.
There is nothing wrong with requirements that turn out to not be
meetable, as long as they are well defined.
This is like you confuse Truth with Knowledge and your brain blows up
when you need to confront their difference.
Note, it talks NOTHING about what makes a given decider
"correct" (a word you don't seem to understand)
Yes, your H is a decider (if you fix it to always answer), but it
isn't a HALT decider though, as its computed results do not match th
Halting function, which IS a valid function to ask about per the
definition of a Semantic Property.
You are just showing your ignorance of the langague.
I guess you think you can submit your Persan Cat into the
Westminister Dog Show as that show is for trained animals.
You have not actually pointed out an "incoherence" in the system, >>>>>> as every claimed incoherence comes AFTER you have added a non-
sense rule to the system.
This is because you just don't know what yo are talking about.
On 12/24/25 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/24/2025 12:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/24/25 12:36 PM, olcott wrote:
*It does define the scope of what deciders can do*
*It does define the scope of what deciders can do*
*It does define the scope of what deciders can do*
*It does define the scope of what deciders can do*
*It does define the scope of what deciders can do*
Ok, but not what they can be asked to do.
When-so-ever whatever they are asked to do is outside
the scope of what they can do the requirement itself
is incorrect.
And where do you get that from?
Your own STUPIDITY.
On 12/24/2025 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/24/25 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/24/2025 12:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/24/25 12:36 PM, olcott wrote:
*It does define the scope of what deciders can do*
*It does define the scope of what deciders can do*
*It does define the scope of what deciders can do*
*It does define the scope of what deciders can do*
*It does define the scope of what deciders can do*
Ok, but not what they can be asked to do.
When-so-ever whatever they are asked to do is outside
the scope of what they can do the requirement itself
is incorrect.
And where do you get that from?
Your own STUPIDITY.
*This defines the scope of computation*
A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that
computes a total function D: Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},
where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the input
alphabet. That is:
1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗, D
halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.
*This is semantically entailed from this definition*
Any requirement that requires more than the above
definition can provide is a requirement that is outside
of the scope of computation.
When you have no idea what the term "semantically
entailed" means or how it works you cannot understand.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,090 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 63:14:28 |
| Calls: | 13,949 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 187,035 |
| D/L today: |
3,464 files (1,014M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,461,403 |