From Newsgroup: comp.theory

Turing machine deciders:
Transform finite strings by finite string
transformation rules into {Accept, Reject}.

Three page paper provides all the reasoning. https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCDTF.pdf
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br>

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>

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

Le 20/12/2025 à 14:09, olcott a écrit :

Subject: Turing machines can not run other Turing machines

Of course they can.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 12/20/2025 7:29 AM, Python wrote:

Le 20/12/2025 à 14:09, olcott a écrit :

Subject: Turing machines can not run other Turing machines

Of course they can.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine

That is not a Turing machine running another Turing machine.
That is a Turing machine applying finite string transformations
to an input finite string.

Three pages that prove the truth about the halting problem https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCDTF.pdf
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br>

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>
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

Le 20/12/2025 à 14:42, olcott a écrit :

On 12/20/2025 7:29 AM, Python wrote:

Le 20/12/2025 à 14:09, olcott a écrit :

Subject: Turing machines can not run other Turing machines

Of course they can.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine

That is not a Turing machine running another Turing machine.

It is.

That is a Turing machine applying finite string transformations
to an input finite string.

It is "running another Turing machine" by "applying finite string transformations
to an input finite string".

Your argument is ridiculous. It is similar to:

"I will compute 12 * 21 with a pencil and a paper:

12
21
-----
12
24
-----
252"

Olcott: No you didn't compute 12 * 21 ! You only put ink on a piece of
paper.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 12/20/2025 10:18 AM, Python wrote:

Le 20/12/2025 à 14:42, olcott a écrit :

On 12/20/2025 7:29 AM, Python wrote:

Le 20/12/2025 à 14:09, olcott a écrit :

Subject: Turing machines can not run other Turing machines

Of course they can.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine

That is not a Turing machine running another Turing machine.

It is.

That is a Turing machine applying finite string transformations
to an input finite string.

It is "running another Turing machine" by "applying finite string transformations
to an input finite string".

Your argument is ridiculous. It is similar to:

It turns out that simulating the machine description
of a Turing machine is exactly equivalent to directly
running the underlying machine ALMOST all the time.

In the very rare cases where they vary one overrules
the other on this basis:

Deciders: Transform finite strings by finite string
transformation rules into {Accept, Reject}.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br>

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>
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 12/20/25 8:42 AM, olcott wrote:

On 12/20/2025 7:29 AM, Python wrote:

Le 20/12/2025 à 14:09, olcott a écrit :

Subject: Turing machines can not run other Turing machines

Of course they can.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine

That is not a Turing machine running another Turing machine.
That is a Turing machine applying finite string transformations
to an input finite string.

Three pages that prove the truth about the halting problem https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCDTF.pdf

I guess by your logic, Turing Machines can't do arithmetic either, and
thus the question of "What is 1 plus 2?" is also invalid. After all,
numbers are not finite strings, but can only be represented by them.

It seems you want to make computations worthless.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 20/12/2025 16:18, Python wrote:

"I will compute 12 * 21 with a pencil and a paper:

 12
 21
-----
 12
24
-----
252"

Olcott: No you didn't compute 12 * 21 ! You only put ink on a piece of
paper.

Nice bit of philosophy.

So here we have that "compute 12 * 21" is similar to "from a
representation of 12 and of 21, construct a representation of those
represented numbers"

Olcott, can you compare your statements about "run"ning and
"simulat[e]"ing to such statements about "comput[e]"ing ?
--
Tristan Wibberley

The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 12/20/2025 4:56 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:

On 20/12/2025 16:18, Python wrote:

"I will compute 12 * 21 with a pencil and a paper:

 12
 21
-----
 12
24
-----
252"

Olcott: No you didn't compute 12 * 21 ! You only put ink on a piece of
paper.

Nice bit of philosophy.

So here we have that "compute 12 * 21" is similar to "from a
representation of 12 and of 21, construct a representation of those represented numbers"

Olcott, can you compare your statements about "run"ning and
"simulat[e]"ing to such statements about "comput[e]"ing ?

It takes a dozen pages to this this properly.
I am boiling it down to its essence.

Deciders: Transform finite string inputs by finite
string transformation rules into {Accept, Reject}.
They are not accountable for anything else.

It turns out that when DD simulated by HHH disagrees
with UTM(DD) that HHH(DD) overrules UTM(DD) because
of the above definition.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br>

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>
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

Le 20/12/2025 à 17:35, olcott a écrit :

On 12/20/2025 10:18 AM, Python wrote:

Le 20/12/2025 à 14:42, olcott a écrit :

On 12/20/2025 7:29 AM, Python wrote:

Le 20/12/2025 à 14:09, olcott a écrit :

Subject: Turing machines can not run other Turing machines

Of course they can.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine

That is not a Turing machine running another Turing machine.

It is.

That is a Turing machine applying finite string transformations
to an input finite string.

It is "running another Turing machine" by "applying finite string
transformations
to an input finite string".

Your argument is ridiculous. It is similar to:

It turns out that simulating the machine description
of a Turing machine is exactly equivalent to directly
running the underlying machine ALMOST all the time.

"simulating the machine description" ? ? ? This does not even parse !

In the very rare cases where they vary one overrules
the other on this basis:

Deciders: Transform finite strings by finite string
transformation rules into {Accept, Reject}.

You're not even trying to address the issue anymore, are you ?

Anyway, you indirectly admitted that "Turing machines can not run other
Turing machines" is FALSE.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2