From Newsgroup: comp.theory

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

When there are no finite string transformation rules that
transform the input finite string into {Accept, Reject} values
the conventional view is that the input is undecidable.
--
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 12/21/25 9:37 AM, olcott wrote:

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

This isn't actually a fundamental definition, but one way to view it.

After all, is an x86 processor doing "finite string transformations"
when it executes an x86 assembly inst5ruction?

Many forms of deciders are based on inputs that are fundamentally
defined as "finite strings", and thus "finite string transformations"
are not the fundamental operational method.

Yes, we can view what they do through an interpretation lens to see it
as a "finite string transformation" but that isn't how they are defined.

When there are no finite string transformation rules that
transform the input finite string into {Accept, Reject} values
the conventional view is that the input is undecidable.

But there are, as a UTM can do it, it just takes infinite work for the
Reject state, which is allowed for the determination of truth.,
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

Am 21.12.2025 um 15:37 schrieb olcott:

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

When there are no finite string transformation rules that
transform the input finite string into {Accept, Reject} values
the conventional view is that the input is undecidable.

That's all for the ivory tower you do.
Have you ever done any real programming ?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 12/21/2025 10:34 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 21.12.2025 um 15:37 schrieb olcott:

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

When there are no finite string transformation rules that
transform the input finite string into {Accept, Reject} values
the conventional view is that the input is undecidable.

That's all for the ivory tower you do.
Have you ever done any real programming ?

Not sure. Humm. He should start with creating a new project. Start
small. He is into emulators/simulators and shit like that... Perhaps a
new DosBox? He can call it poBox...?

Get it to a point where it can install on old OS? Say, WinME or something?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 12/21/2025 12:34 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 21.12.2025 um 15:37 schrieb olcott:

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

When there are no finite string transformation rules that
transform the input finite string into {Accept, Reject} values
the conventional view is that the input is undecidable.

That's all for the ivory tower you do.
Have you ever done any real programming ?

Decades.

My post recent.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOESS
I was the C++ programmer for Satellite ingest.

A couple of years of this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ObjectARX
--
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 21/12/2025 à 23:36, olcott a écrit :

On 12/21/2025 12:34 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 21.12.2025 um 15:37 schrieb olcott:

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

When there are no finite string transformation rules that
transform the input finite string into {Accept, Reject} values
the conventional view is that the input is undecidable.

That's all for the ivory tower you do.
Have you ever done any real programming ?

Decades.

My post recent.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm

Based on code you didn't write.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOESS
I was the C++ programmer for Satellite ingest.

A couple of years of this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ObjectARX

You were cleaning the bathrooms there?


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

Am 21.12.2025 um 23:36 schrieb olcott:

On 12/21/2025 12:34 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 21.12.2025 um 15:37 schrieb olcott:

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

When there are no finite string transformation rules that
transform the input finite string into {Accept, Reject} values
the conventional view is that the input is undecidable.

That's all for the ivory tower you do.
Have you ever done any real programming ?

Decades.

My post recent.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOESS
I was the C++ programmer for Satellite ingest.

A couple of years of this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ObjectARX

Sorry, that's the same ivory tower issue.
Do you have experience with a larger commercial project ?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 12/21/25 9:37 AM, olcott wrote:

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

When there are no finite string transformation rules that
transform the input finite string into {Accept, Reject} values
the conventional view is that the input is undecidable.

Let me point out how STUPID this definition is.

Since you don't define what a "rule" is, one simple rule that could be
defined for the Halting problem is:

Transform the Finite String that represent a program into the Accept if
the program that string represents halts when run, or Reject if it never
will.


Why is that not a "Finite String Transformation Rule"?

After all, a rule is just "a prescribed guide for conduct or action" per Merriam-Webster, so doesn't limit what it can describe.

Your problem is you need to describe how a computation works, but you
clearly don't understand what it actually is, and need to make up
something that sounds reasonable to you.

This just goes back to your failure to understand how "meaning" works,
which makes all of your logic fall apart.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 12/22/2025 9:22 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 21.12.2025 um 23:36 schrieb olcott:

On 12/21/2025 12:34 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 21.12.2025 um 15:37 schrieb olcott:

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

When there are no finite string transformation rules that
transform the input finite string into {Accept, Reject} values
the conventional view is that the input is undecidable.

That's all for the ivory tower you do.
Have you ever done any real programming ?

Decades.

My post recent.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOESS
I was the C++ programmer for Satellite ingest.

A couple of years of this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ObjectARX

Sorry, that's the same ivory tower issue.
Do you have experience with a larger commercial project ?

Satellite ingest is not ivory tower.
AutoCAD is not ivory tower.
--
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 22/12/2025 15:56, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/21/25 9:37 AM, olcott wrote:

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

When there are no finite string transformation rules that
transform the input finite string into {Accept, Reject} values
the conventional view is that the input is undecidable.

Let me point out how STUPID this definition is.

Since you don't define what a "rule" is, one simple rule that could be defined for the Halting problem is:

Transform the Finite String that represent a program into the Accept if
the program that string represents halts when run, or Reject if it never will.

Why is that not a "Finite String Transformation Rule"?

"finite string-transformation rules"
^
and "input finite-string"
^

he missed out the hyphens.
--
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 12/22/25 3:56 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:

On 22/12/2025 15:56, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/21/25 9:37 AM, olcott wrote:

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

When there are no finite string transformation rules that
transform the input finite string into {Accept, Reject} values
the conventional view is that the input is undecidable.

Let me point out how STUPID this definition is.

Since you don't define what a "rule" is, one simple rule that could be
defined for the Halting problem is:

Transform the Finite String that represent a program into the Accept if
the program that string represents halts when run, or Reject if it never
will.


Why is that not a "Finite String Transformation Rule"?

"finite string-transformation rules"
^
and "input finite-string"
^

he missed out the hyphens.

No, his first is finite-string transformation rules, since the basic
object he talks about is the finite-string.

Or maybe finite-string transformation-rules, since the rules are about
how you transform.

THe problem is he doesn't understand that this perhaps a description of
HOW, but not WHAT or WHY.

Since the actual definition says it is trying to compute a mapping, that mappign could be considered one ginat transformation rule, you convert
what ever is on the input to what ever is on the output.

Nothng in his words limits it to "computable"

To do that, he needs to go back to the definitions of what sort of
algorithmic steps are allowed to build up the transformation.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 12/22/2025 7:22 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 21.12.2025 um 23:36 schrieb olcott:

On 12/21/2025 12:34 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 21.12.2025 um 15:37 schrieb olcott:

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

When there are no finite string transformation rules that
transform the input finite string into {Accept, Reject} values
the conventional view is that the input is undecidable.

That's all for the ivory tower you do.
Have you ever done any real programming ?

Decades.

My post recent.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOESS
I was the C++ programmer for Satellite ingest.

A couple of years of this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ObjectARX

Sorry, that's the same ivory tower issue.
Do you have experience with a larger commercial project ?

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

I don't know if he was involved with that or not. Humm, imvvho, he would almost have to be familiar with vector fields to work on it? His C code
is pretty terrible.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 12/22/25 4:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 12/22/2025 7:22 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 21.12.2025 um 23:36 schrieb olcott:

On 12/21/2025 12:34 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 21.12.2025 um 15:37 schrieb olcott:

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

When there are no finite string transformation rules that
transform the input finite string into {Accept, Reject} values
the conventional view is that the input is undecidable.

That's all for the ivory tower you do.
Have you ever done any real programming ?

Decades.

My post recent.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOESS
I was the C++ programmer for Satellite ingest.

A couple of years of this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ObjectARX

Sorry, that's the same ivory tower issue.
Do you have experience with a larger commercial project ?

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

I don't know if he was involved with that or not. Humm, imvvho, he would almost have to be familiar with vector fields to work on it? His C code
is pretty terrible.

He might well have been a junior coder where someone told him what to write.

He has talked about how long, and how many times he needed to go though specification sheets, like being slow was a badge of honor, like it
showed it must have been hard.

More likely, he was just being slow.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2