From Newsgroup: comp.theory

*This first principle is derived from standard definitions*
Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.

*This is semantically entailed by that first principle*
(when that first principle is allowed to overrule
anything that contradicts it)

What-so-ever result that cannot be derived by
applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings <is> outside the scope of
computation.

When there exists no finite string transformation
rules that H can apply to its input P to derive
behavior matching UTM(P) then the requirement for
H to do this is incorrect.

Carol's question + my Prolog are a convincing combination https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398953475_Carol's_question_my_Prolog_are_a_convincing_combination
--
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 12/22/25 11:28 AM, olcott wrote:

*This first principle is derived from standard definitions*
Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.

But is wrong and worthless.

Your repeating it after being told of this just shows you are nothing
but a con man and pathological liar.

*This is semantically entailed by that first principle*
(when that first principle is allowed to overrule
anything that contradicts it)

But you don't KNOW the "First Priciples", but just lie about making them
up. You have admited you haven't studied them, and thus you admit when
you claim them you are lying.

What-so-ever result that cannot be derived by
applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings <is> outside the scope of
computation.

But ANYTHING can be derived from your above case, as you don't limit the "rules" used for your finite string transfor,

When there exists no finite string transformation
rules that H can apply to its input P to derive
behavior matching UTM(P) then the requirement for
H to do this is incorrect.

And there you go proving you don't know what a program is. Since P is
built dependent on a specific H, you can't then try to change H to be something else.

Carol's question + my Prolog are a convincing combination https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/398953475_Carol's_question_my_Prolog_are_a_convincing_combination

But "Carol" if off topic, as she isn't a computation.

Or, are your machines off-topic as they are either?

Sorry, all you are doing is proving your stupidity and ignorance.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 12/22/2025 08:28 AM, olcott wrote:

*This first principle is derived from standard definitions*
Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.

*This is semantically entailed by that first principle*
(when that first principle is allowed to overrule
anything that contradicts it)

What-so-ever result that cannot be derived by
applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings <is> outside the scope of
computation.

When there exists no finite string transformation
rules that H can apply to its input P to derive
behavior matching UTM(P) then the requirement for
H to do this is incorrect.

Carol's question + my Prolog are a convincing combination https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398953475_Carol's_question_my_Prolog_are_a_convincing_combination

Here, emit Russell's paradox, and arrive at that now
you can't not have the infinitary and the extra-ordinary.

How potentialistic systems of objects "add up" and "compute"
things according to mathematics and physics, is
more than retro-finitism.

Your effort seems doomed.

So, "computation" about "the infinite" whether or not
it's "in scope" has that it plainly just "is".

Then about Entscheidungs or branching problem or halting
problem, has that there are at least three law(s) of large
numbers, at least three models of continuous domains,
at least three models of Cantor space, for at least
three regularities/rulialities like foundedness/ordering/dispersion,
that what you have there is a blustering balk at an
inductive impasse and then that retro-finitism is
yet another false floor of a dead end.

Dead end.


How about thousands of years of collected super-classical reasoning.


Really though, if you want to get into non-standard analysis,
it's got to arrive at being more complete not less complete.


Yes if you actually want to explore cases beyond the usual account
after Turing, Church, Rice, Rosser, von Neumann, and so on,
then, it sort of demands a rather thorough and holistic account.

Otherwise you get "arguing, starving philosophers" instead
of "dining, deriving philosophers".


Then, whether P(Halts) is ~0, ~1, or ~0.5 or ~0.85, is part
of laws of large numbers and infinitary reasoning. The
"invincible ignorance of inductive invariance" otherwise
finds it itself readily broken.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 12/22/2025 11:29 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/22/2025 08:28 AM, olcott wrote:

*This first principle is derived from standard definitions*
Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.

*This is semantically entailed by that first principle*
(when that first principle is allowed to overrule
anything that contradicts it)

What-so-ever result that cannot be derived by
applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings <is> outside the scope of
computation.

When there exists no finite string transformation
rules that H can apply to its input P to derive
behavior matching UTM(P) then the requirement for
H to do this is incorrect.

Carol's question + my Prolog are a convincing combination
https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/398953475_Carol's_question_my_Prolog_are_a_convincing_combination

Here, emit Russell's paradox, and arrive at that now
you can't not have the infinitary and the extra-ordinary.

How potentialistic systems of objects "add up" and "compute"
things according to mathematics and physics, is
more than retro-finitism.

Your effort seems doomed.

So, "computation" about "the infinite" whether or not
it's "in scope" has that it plainly just "is".

Then about Entscheidungs or branching problem or halting
problem, has that there are at least three law(s) of large
numbers, at least three models of continuous domains,
at least three models of Cantor space, for at least
three regularities/rulialities like foundedness/ordering/dispersion,
that what you have there is a blustering balk at an
inductive impasse and then that retro-finitism is
yet another false floor of a dead end.

Dead end.

How about thousands of years of collected super-classical reasoning.

Really though, if you want to get into non-standard analysis,
it's got to arrive at being more complete not less complete.

Yes if you actually want to explore cases beyond the usual account
after Turing, Church, Rice, Rosser, von Neumann, and so on,
then, it sort of demands a rather thorough and holistic account.

Otherwise you get "arguing, starving philosophers" instead
of "dining, deriving philosophers".

Then, whether P(Halts) is ~0, ~1, or ~0.5 or ~0.85, is part
of laws of large numbers and infinitary reasoning. The
"invincible ignorance of inductive invariance" otherwise
finds it itself readily broken.

% This sentence is not true.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.

It you understood that Prolog you would understand
that I am correct on the Liar Paradox. Seeing how
this applies to the halting problem is more difficult.

From what I recall you and I have the same goals:
making
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
consistently derivable.

*My first documented use of the term*
"finite string transformation rules"

Basically I formalize the entire set of all knowledge (mathematical and otherwise) simply as finite string transformation rules.

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/TFXhleKnHmY/m/lqhDVnvUBgAJ
--
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 12/22/25 12:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 11:29 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/22/2025 08:28 AM, olcott wrote:

*This first principle is derived from standard definitions*
Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.

*This is semantically entailed by that first principle*
(when that first principle is allowed to overrule
anything that contradicts it)

What-so-ever result that cannot be derived by
applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings <is> outside the scope of
computation.

When there exists no finite string transformation
rules that H can apply to its input P to derive
behavior matching UTM(P) then the requirement for
H to do this is incorrect.

Carol's question + my Prolog are a convincing combination
https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/398953475_Carol's_question_my_Prolog_are_a_convincing_combination

Here, emit Russell's paradox, and arrive at that now
you can't not have the infinitary and the extra-ordinary.

How potentialistic systems of objects "add up" and "compute"
things according to mathematics and physics, is
more than retro-finitism.

Your effort seems doomed.

So, "computation" about "the infinite" whether or not
it's "in scope" has that it plainly just "is".

Then about Entscheidungs or branching problem or halting
problem, has that there are at least three law(s) of large
numbers, at least three models of continuous domains,
at least three models of Cantor space, for at least
three regularities/rulialities like foundedness/ordering/dispersion,
that what you have there is a blustering balk at an
inductive impasse and then that retro-finitism is
yet another false floor of a dead end.

Dead end.


How about thousands of years of collected super-classical reasoning.


Really though, if you want to get into non-standard analysis,
it's got to arrive at being more complete not less complete.


Yes if you actually want to explore cases beyond the usual account
after Turing, Church, Rice, Rosser, von Neumann, and so on,
then, it sort of demands a rather thorough and holistic account.

Otherwise you get "arguing, starving philosophers" instead
of "dining, deriving philosophers".


Then, whether P(Halts) is ~0, ~1, or ~0.5 or ~0.85, is part
of laws of large numbers and infinitary reasoning. The
"invincible ignorance of inductive invariance" otherwise
finds it itself readily broken.

% This sentence is not true.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.

It you understood that Prolog you would understand
that I am correct on the Liar Paradox. Seeing how
this applies to the halting problem is more difficult.

And if you understood how logic works, you would understand that the
liar's paradox is written in a higher form of logic than what Prolog
handles.

Since you hav4 that same limitiation, you are just showing your stupidity.

From what I recall you and I have the same goals:
making
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
consistently derivable.

*My first documented use of the term*
"finite string transformation rules"

Basically I formalize the entire set of all knowledge (mathematical and otherwise) simply as finite string transformation rules.

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/TFXhleKnHmY/m/lqhDVnvUBgAJ

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 12/22/2025 11:29 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/22/2025 08:28 AM, olcott wrote:

*This first principle is derived from standard definitions*
Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.

*This is semantically entailed by that first principle*
(when that first principle is allowed to overrule
anything that contradicts it)

What-so-ever result that cannot be derived by
applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings <is> outside the scope of
computation.

When there exists no finite string transformation
rules that H can apply to its input P to derive
behavior matching UTM(P) then the requirement for
H to do this is incorrect.

Carol's question + my Prolog are a convincing combination
https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/398953475_Carol's_question_my_Prolog_are_a_convincing_combination

Here, emit Russell's paradox, and arrive at that now
you can't not have the infinitary and the extra-ordinary.

How potentialistic systems of objects "add up" and "compute"
things according to mathematics and physics, is
more than retro-finitism.

Your effort seems doomed.

So, "computation" about "the infinite" whether or not
it's "in scope" has that it plainly just "is".

Then about Entscheidungs or branching problem or halting
problem, has that there are at least three law(s) of large
numbers, at least three models of continuous domains,
at least three models of Cantor space, for at least
three regularities/rulialities like foundedness/ordering/dispersion,
that what you have there is a blustering balk at an
inductive impasse and then that retro-finitism is
yet another false floor of a dead end.

Dead end.

How about thousands of years of collected super-classical reasoning.

Really though, if you want to get into non-standard analysis,
it's got to arrive at being more complete not less complete.

Yes if you actually want to explore cases beyond the usual account
after Turing, Church, Rice, Rosser, von Neumann, and so on,
then, it sort of demands a rather thorough and holistic account.

Otherwise you get "arguing, starving philosophers" instead
of "dining, deriving philosophers".

Then, whether P(Halts) is ~0, ~1, or ~0.5 or ~0.85, is part
of laws of large numbers and infinitary reasoning. The
"invincible ignorance of inductive invariance" otherwise
finds it itself readily broken.

Your stated goal is to examine readings in foundations
of math and physics.
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson

Such a view can be biased by fundamental false assumptions.
The way to detect these fundamental false assumptions
is detecting incoherence between standard definitions.

My stated goal is to define or redefine the
foundations of computation such that
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
is always reliably computable.

I have accomplished that.
--
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 12/22/25 12:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 11:29 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/22/2025 08:28 AM, olcott wrote:

*This first principle is derived from standard definitions*
Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.

*This is semantically entailed by that first principle*
(when that first principle is allowed to overrule
anything that contradicts it)

What-so-ever result that cannot be derived by
applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings <is> outside the scope of
computation.

When there exists no finite string transformation
rules that H can apply to its input P to derive
behavior matching UTM(P) then the requirement for
H to do this is incorrect.

Carol's question + my Prolog are a convincing combination
https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/398953475_Carol's_question_my_Prolog_are_a_convincing_combination

Here, emit Russell's paradox, and arrive at that now
you can't not have the infinitary and the extra-ordinary.

How potentialistic systems of objects "add up" and "compute"
things according to mathematics and physics, is
more than retro-finitism.

Your effort seems doomed.

So, "computation" about "the infinite" whether or not
it's "in scope" has that it plainly just "is".

Then about Entscheidungs or branching problem or halting
problem, has that there are at least three law(s) of large
numbers, at least three models of continuous domains,
at least three models of Cantor space, for at least
three regularities/rulialities like foundedness/ordering/dispersion,
that what you have there is a blustering balk at an
inductive impasse and then that retro-finitism is
yet another false floor of a dead end.

Dead end.


How about thousands of years of collected super-classical reasoning.


Really though, if you want to get into non-standard analysis,
it's got to arrive at being more complete not less complete.


Yes if you actually want to explore cases beyond the usual account
after Turing, Church, Rice, Rosser, von Neumann, and so on,
then, it sort of demands a rather thorough and holistic account.

Otherwise you get "arguing, starving philosophers" instead
of "dining, deriving philosophers".


Then, whether P(Halts) is ~0, ~1, or ~0.5 or ~0.85, is part
of laws of large numbers and infinitary reasoning. The
"invincible ignorance of inductive invariance" otherwise
finds it itself readily broken.

Your stated goal is to examine readings in foundations
of math and physics.
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson

Such a view can be biased by fundamental false assumptions.
The way to detect these fundamental false assumptions
is detecting incoherence between standard definitions.

My stated goal is to define or redefine the
foundations of computation such that
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
is always reliably computable.

I have accomplished that.

Nope. just that you don't understand the fundamental definitions.

All your "incoherancies" are rooted in making a false assumption.

This proves your stupidity and that you are just a pathological liar.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 12/22/2025 12:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 12:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 11:29 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/22/2025 08:28 AM, olcott wrote:

*This first principle is derived from standard definitions*
Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.

*This is semantically entailed by that first principle*
(when that first principle is allowed to overrule
anything that contradicts it)

What-so-ever result that cannot be derived by
applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings <is> outside the scope of
computation.

When there exists no finite string transformation
rules that H can apply to its input P to derive
behavior matching UTM(P) then the requirement for
H to do this is incorrect.

Carol's question + my Prolog are a convincing combination
https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/398953475_Carol's_question_my_Prolog_are_a_convincing_combination

Here, emit Russell's paradox, and arrive at that now
you can't not have the infinitary and the extra-ordinary.

How potentialistic systems of objects "add up" and "compute"
things according to mathematics and physics, is
more than retro-finitism.

Your effort seems doomed.

So, "computation" about "the infinite" whether or not
it's "in scope" has that it plainly just "is".

Then about Entscheidungs or branching problem or halting
problem, has that there are at least three law(s) of large
numbers, at least three models of continuous domains,
at least three models of Cantor space, for at least
three regularities/rulialities like foundedness/ordering/dispersion,
that what you have there is a blustering balk at an
inductive impasse and then that retro-finitism is
yet another false floor of a dead end.

Dead end.


How about thousands of years of collected super-classical reasoning.


Really though, if you want to get into non-standard analysis,
it's got to arrive at being more complete not less complete.


Yes if you actually want to explore cases beyond the usual account
after Turing, Church, Rice, Rosser, von Neumann, and so on,
then, it sort of demands a rather thorough and holistic account.

Otherwise you get "arguing, starving philosophers" instead
of "dining, deriving philosophers".


Then, whether P(Halts) is ~0, ~1, or ~0.5 or ~0.85, is part
of laws of large numbers and infinitary reasoning. The
"invincible ignorance of inductive invariance" otherwise
finds it itself readily broken.

Your stated goal is to examine readings in foundations
of math and physics.
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson

Such a view can be biased by fundamental false assumptions.
The way to detect these fundamental false assumptions
is detecting incoherence between standard definitions.

My stated goal is to define or redefine the
foundations of computation such that
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
is always reliably computable.

I have accomplished that.

Nope. just that you don't understand the fundamental definitions.

*I have proven that they are incoherent*

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

Thus accept or reject finite string inputs on
the basis of whether or not this finite string
input specifies a "syntactic or semantic property".

All your "incoherancies" are rooted in making a false assumption.

This proves your stupidity and that you are just a pathological liar.

--
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 12/22/25 1:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 12:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 12:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 11:29 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/22/2025 08:28 AM, olcott wrote:

*This first principle is derived from standard definitions*
Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.

*This is semantically entailed by that first principle*
(when that first principle is allowed to overrule
anything that contradicts it)

What-so-ever result that cannot be derived by
applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings <is> outside the scope of
computation.

When there exists no finite string transformation
rules that H can apply to its input P to derive
behavior matching UTM(P) then the requirement for
H to do this is incorrect.

Carol's question + my Prolog are a convincing combination
https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/398953475_Carol's_question_my_Prolog_are_a_convincing_combination

Here, emit Russell's paradox, and arrive at that now
you can't not have the infinitary and the extra-ordinary.

How potentialistic systems of objects "add up" and "compute"
things according to mathematics and physics, is
more than retro-finitism.

Your effort seems doomed.

So, "computation" about "the infinite" whether or not
it's "in scope" has that it plainly just "is".

Then about Entscheidungs or branching problem or halting
problem, has that there are at least three law(s) of large
numbers, at least three models of continuous domains,
at least three models of Cantor space, for at least
three regularities/rulialities like foundedness/ordering/dispersion,
that what you have there is a blustering balk at an
inductive impasse and then that retro-finitism is
yet another false floor of a dead end.

Dead end.


How about thousands of years of collected super-classical reasoning.


Really though, if you want to get into non-standard analysis,
it's got to arrive at being more complete not less complete.


Yes if you actually want to explore cases beyond the usual account
after Turing, Church, Rice, Rosser, von Neumann, and so on,
then, it sort of demands a rather thorough and holistic account.

Otherwise you get "arguing, starving philosophers" instead
of "dining, deriving philosophers".


Then, whether P(Halts) is ~0, ~1, or ~0.5 or ~0.85, is part
of laws of large numbers and infinitary reasoning. The
"invincible ignorance of inductive invariance" otherwise
finds it itself readily broken.

Your stated goal is to examine readings in foundations
of math and physics.
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson

Such a view can be biased by fundamental false assumptions.
The way to detect these fundamental false assumptions
is detecting incoherence between standard definitions.

My stated goal is to define or redefine the
foundations of computation such that
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
is always reliably computable.

I have accomplished that.

Nope. just that you don't understand the fundamental definitions.

*I have proven that they are incoherent*

No, you haven't. You have shown you don't know what you are talking about.

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

Thus accept or reject finite string inputs on
the basis of whether or not this finite string
input specifies a "syntactic or semantic property".

Which at best, is talking about what they CAN do, not what problems they
can be asked to solve.

Again, you don't know the meaning of the words you are using, and thus
showing that you are just stupid.

All your "incoherancies" are rooted in making a false assumption.

This proves your stupidity and that you are just a pathological liar.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 12/22/2025 12:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 1:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 12:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 12:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 11:29 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/22/2025 08:28 AM, olcott wrote:

*This first principle is derived from standard definitions*
Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.

*This is semantically entailed by that first principle*
(when that first principle is allowed to overrule
anything that contradicts it)

What-so-ever result that cannot be derived by
applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings <is> outside the scope of
computation.

When there exists no finite string transformation
rules that H can apply to its input P to derive
behavior matching UTM(P) then the requirement for
H to do this is incorrect.

Carol's question + my Prolog are a convincing combination
https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/398953475_Carol's_question_my_Prolog_are_a_convincing_combination

Here, emit Russell's paradox, and arrive at that now
you can't not have the infinitary and the extra-ordinary.

How potentialistic systems of objects "add up" and "compute"
things according to mathematics and physics, is
more than retro-finitism.

Your effort seems doomed.

So, "computation" about "the infinite" whether or not
it's "in scope" has that it plainly just "is".

Then about Entscheidungs or branching problem or halting
problem, has that there are at least three law(s) of large
numbers, at least three models of continuous domains,
at least three models of Cantor space, for at least
three regularities/rulialities like foundedness/ordering/dispersion, >>>>> that what you have there is a blustering balk at an
inductive impasse and then that retro-finitism is
yet another false floor of a dead end.

Dead end.


How about thousands of years of collected super-classical reasoning. >>>>>

Really though, if you want to get into non-standard analysis,
it's got to arrive at being more complete not less complete.


Yes if you actually want to explore cases beyond the usual account
after Turing, Church, Rice, Rosser, von Neumann, and so on,
then, it sort of demands a rather thorough and holistic account.

Otherwise you get "arguing, starving philosophers" instead
of "dining, deriving philosophers".


Then, whether P(Halts) is ~0, ~1, or ~0.5 or ~0.85, is part
of laws of large numbers and infinitary reasoning. The
"invincible ignorance of inductive invariance" otherwise
finds it itself readily broken.

Your stated goal is to examine readings in foundations
of math and physics.
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson

Such a view can be biased by fundamental false assumptions.
The way to detect these fundamental false assumptions
is detecting incoherence between standard definitions.

My stated goal is to define or redefine the
foundations of computation such that
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
is always reliably computable.

I have accomplished that.

Nope. just that you don't understand the fundamental definitions.

*I have proven that they are incoherent*

No, you haven't. You have shown you don't know what you are talking about.

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

Thus accept or reject finite string inputs on
the basis of whether or not this finite string
input specifies a "syntactic or semantic property".

Which at best, is talking about what they CAN do, not what problems they
can be asked to solve.

You are getting closer, good job !
Anything outside of what they CAN do
is outside the scope of computation.

Again, you don't know the meaning of the words you are using, and thus showing that you are just stupid.

--
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 12/22/25 1:40 PM, olcott wrote:

You are getting closer, good job !
Anything outside of what they CAN do
is outside the scope of computation.

Nope.

That just shows you don't understand the field.

Since the problem is to determine what IS computable, limiting what you
can ask to just computable things is nonsense.

Again, you confuse ability with requirements, just as you confuse
knowledge with truth

This goes back to you fundamental error in how things work.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 12/22/2025 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 1:40 PM, olcott wrote:

You are getting closer, good job !
Anything outside of what they CAN do
is outside the scope of computation.

Nope.

That just shows you don't understand the field.

Since the problem is to determine what IS computable, limiting what you
can ask to just computable things is nonsense.

Only those things that can be derived by applying
finite string transformations to inputs are computable.
--
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 12/22/2025 09:38 AM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 11:29 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/22/2025 08:28 AM, olcott wrote:

*This first principle is derived from standard definitions*
Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.

*This is semantically entailed by that first principle*
(when that first principle is allowed to overrule
anything that contradicts it)

What-so-ever result that cannot be derived by
applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings <is> outside the scope of
computation.

When there exists no finite string transformation
rules that H can apply to its input P to derive
behavior matching UTM(P) then the requirement for
H to do this is incorrect.

Carol's question + my Prolog are a convincing combination
https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/398953475_Carol's_question_my_Prolog_are_a_convincing_combination

Here, emit Russell's paradox, and arrive at that now
you can't not have the infinitary and the extra-ordinary.

How potentialistic systems of objects "add up" and "compute"
things according to mathematics and physics, is
more than retro-finitism.

Your effort seems doomed.

So, "computation" about "the infinite" whether or not
it's "in scope" has that it plainly just "is".

Then about Entscheidungs or branching problem or halting
problem, has that there are at least three law(s) of large
numbers, at least three models of continuous domains,
at least three models of Cantor space, for at least
three regularities/rulialities like foundedness/ordering/dispersion,
that what you have there is a blustering balk at an
inductive impasse and then that retro-finitism is
yet another false floor of a dead end.

Dead end.


How about thousands of years of collected super-classical reasoning.


Really though, if you want to get into non-standard analysis,
it's got to arrive at being more complete not less complete.


Yes if you actually want to explore cases beyond the usual account
after Turing, Church, Rice, Rosser, von Neumann, and so on,
then, it sort of demands a rather thorough and holistic account.

Otherwise you get "arguing, starving philosophers" instead
of "dining, deriving philosophers".


Then, whether P(Halts) is ~0, ~1, or ~0.5 or ~0.85, is part
of laws of large numbers and infinitary reasoning. The
"invincible ignorance of inductive invariance" otherwise
finds it itself readily broken.

% This sentence is not true.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.

It you understood that Prolog you would understand
that I am correct on the Liar Paradox. Seeing how
this applies to the halting problem is more difficult.

From what I recall you and I have the same goals:
making
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
consistently derivable.

*My first documented use of the term*
"finite string transformation rules"

Basically I formalize the entire set of all knowledge (mathematical and otherwise) simply as finite string transformation rules.

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/TFXhleKnHmY/m/lqhDVnvUBgAJ

That may begin an ontology, yet there's all
the geometric to be figured out, since otherwise
there are arguments available that make it so that
any sort of geometric enterprise and any sort of
algebraic enterprise _need each other_.

So, there are "true mathematics" beyond "finite string
transformation rules". Notions like cellular automata
as fundamental elements eventually fail to model, to
represent as from representation theory of algebra and
model theory of logic in the usual accounts, eventually
fail to model all of geometry, and here as above the
continuous domains of which there are at least three,
making for at least three distinct definitions of continuity,
since the usual modern account which is very algebraic
eventually runs out and Russell's retro-thesis is wrong itself.


I'd suggest that what you see is known since antiquity
that any sort of inductive account has another one breaking
it, and then about quantification and comprehension and over
the infinite with regards to the finite and about the
Anti-Diagonal argument or Diagonal Method as it's called,
has all those have a direct counter-argument about the existence
of arbitrarily larger models of finite models, or the
"exists >> m" the "exists greater-than greater-than m" as
much as the "not exists > m".

Then otherwise what you describe is merely a "logicist positivism",
i.e. having an ontology after some axiomatics, that being nominalist
and all since Occam and since Plotinus and Philo and all and being
all nominalist and not-realist, that _realism_ must make for some
strong mathematical platonism and strong logicist positivism together,
if there's actually to be a mono-heno-theory a theatheory of sorts,
then you need a paradox-free reason and a real paleo-classical
account of logic with Chrysippus' moods for the modal instead of
Philo's quasi-modal accounts, since real logic is modal, temporal,
relevance logic, and usual quasi-modal accounts of the classical they fail.

Then, it's readily arrived at after "exists >> m" that usual accounts
shown by the Diagonal Argument have counter-examples, in any sort of
finitistic reasoning, then that classical examples of the
super-classical, have all the reasons why it demands a real deductive
account
and why inductive inference simply can't have it all.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 12/22/25 1:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 1:40 PM, olcott wrote:

You are getting closer, good job !
Anything outside of what they CAN do
is outside the scope of computation.

Nope.

That just shows you don't understand the field.

Since the problem is to determine what IS computable, limiting what
you can ask to just computable things is nonsense.

Only those things that can be derived by applying
finite string transformations to inputs are computable.

So?

The thing is Computations CAN only do what is computable.

But the problems they can be asked are not limited to that.

It is just that some problems become uncomputable because we can't make
a computation do it.

Your problem with your "definition" is that I can define an uncomputable "finite string transformation" as that phrase doesn't actually limit
which transformation are allowed to be used.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 12/22/2025 1:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 1:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 1:40 PM, olcott wrote:

You are getting closer, good job !
Anything outside of what they CAN do
is outside the scope of computation.

Nope.

That just shows you don't understand the field.

Since the problem is to determine what IS computable, limiting what
you can ask to just computable things is nonsense.

Only those things that can be derived by applying
finite string transformations to inputs are computable.

So?

Requiring H(P) to report on the basis of UTM(P) is not
derivable by applying finite string transformations to
the input to H(P).
--
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 12/22/25 2:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 1:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 1:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 1:40 PM, olcott wrote:

You are getting closer, good job !
Anything outside of what they CAN do
is outside the scope of computation.

Nope.

That just shows you don't understand the field.

Since the problem is to determine what IS computable, limiting what
you can ask to just computable things is nonsense.

Only those things that can be derived by applying
finite string transformations to inputs are computable.

So?

Requiring H(P) to report on the basis of UTM(P) is not
derivable by applying finite string transformations to
the input to H(P).

Sure it is. Why isn't UTM(P) not a valid finite string transformation?

You can't limit the transformations to what are actually IN H, since
that just breaks things as then every machine is correct, since it
computed the transform that it defined.

Your problem is you can't think, as you don't know the basics to work
with, because you CHOSE to be IGNORNT and thus made yourself STUPID.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 12/22/2025 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 2:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 1:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 1:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 1:40 PM, olcott wrote:

You are getting closer, good job !
Anything outside of what they CAN do
is outside the scope of computation.

Nope.

That just shows you don't understand the field.

Since the problem is to determine what IS computable, limiting what >>>>> you can ask to just computable things is nonsense.

Only those things that can be derived by applying
finite string transformations to inputs are computable.

So?

Requiring H(P) to report on the basis of UTM(P) is not
derivable by applying finite string transformations to
the input to H(P).

Sure it is. Why isn't UTM(P) not a valid finite string transformation?

You are not precise enough in your use of the exact
words that I precisely specified.

You can't limit the transformations to what are actually IN H, since
that just breaks things as then every machine is correct, since it
computed the transform that it defined.

There does not exist any H(P) such that P calls
H(P) and has the same behavior as H1(P) where
P does not call H1.

Both H(P) and H1(P) do apply the best possible
finite string transformation rules to their inputs
and derive different results because there is
a pathological relationship between H and P.

Your problem is you can't think, as you don't know the basics to work
with, because you CHOSE to be IGNORNT and thus made yourself STUPID.

I have always been correct about this and no one
person could ever show otherwise because their
own basis of correct was incorrect: mere consensus
of fallible human opinion.
--
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 12/22/25 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 2:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 1:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 1:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 1:40 PM, olcott wrote:

You are getting closer, good job !
Anything outside of what they CAN do
is outside the scope of computation.

Nope.

That just shows you don't understand the field.

Since the problem is to determine what IS computable, limiting
what you can ask to just computable things is nonsense.

Only those things that can be derived by applying
finite string transformations to inputs are computable.

So?

Requiring H(P) to report on the basis of UTM(P) is not
derivable by applying finite string transformations to
the input to H(P).

Sure it is. Why isn't UTM(P) not a valid finite string transformation?

You are not precise enough in your use of the exact
words that I precisely specified.

Really?

What did I miss, that isn't you eqivocating on the meaning of your words.

Of course, your problem is your words no longer have any meaning as you
have admitted you reserve the right to change meanings when you want to.

You can't limit the transformations to what are actually IN H, since
that just breaks things as then every machine is correct, since it
computed the transform that it defined.

There does not exist any H(P) such that P calls
H(P) and has the same behavior as H1(P) where
P does not call H1.

So?

It seems you don't understand that constants need to be constants.

And that correct means actually correct.

You seem to think that because something turns out impossible it wasn't
ok to look for it.

Both H(P) and H1(P) do apply the best possible
finite string transformation rules to their inputs
and derive different results because there is
a pathological relationship between H and P.

Nope, because they are different programs because you don't understand
the nature of a program.

Being your best doesn't mean you are correct, when you are fundamentally
based on doing things wrong.

Your problem is you can't think, as you don't know the basics to work
with, because you CHOSE to be IGNORNT and thus made yourself STUPID.

I have always been correct about this and no one
person could ever show otherwise because their
own basis of correct was incorrect: mere consensus
of fallible human opinion.

Nope, just too stupid to see your errors.

You have admitted this, as you admit you never studied the actual field
to know what things means.

The fallible human opinion, is your own.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 12/22/2025 2:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 2:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 1:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 1:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 1:40 PM, olcott wrote:

You are getting closer, good job !
Anything outside of what they CAN do
is outside the scope of computation.

Nope.

That just shows you don't understand the field.

Since the problem is to determine what IS computable, limiting
what you can ask to just computable things is nonsense.

Only those things that can be derived by applying
finite string transformations to inputs are computable.

So?

Requiring H(P) to report on the basis of UTM(P) is not
derivable by applying finite string transformations to
the input to H(P).

Sure it is. Why isn't UTM(P) not a valid finite string transformation?

You are not precise enough in your use of the exact
words that I precisely specified.

Really?

What did I miss, that isn't you eqivocating on the meaning of your words.

Of course, your problem is your words no longer have any meaning as you
have admitted you reserve the right to change meanings when you want to.

You can't limit the transformations to what are actually IN H, since
that just breaks things as then every machine is correct, since it
computed the transform that it defined.

There does not exist any H(P) such that P calls
H(P) and has the same behavior as H1(P) where
P does not call H1.

So?

H is only accountable for applying finite string
transformation rules to its input finite string.

H is not accountable for baking a birthday cake.
H is not accountable for not using psychic powers.

H is only accountable for applying finite string
transformation rules to its input finite string.
Anything else is outside the scope of computation.
--
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 12/22/25 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 2:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 2:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 1:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 1:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 1:40 PM, olcott wrote:

You are getting closer, good job !
Anything outside of what they CAN do
is outside the scope of computation.

Nope.

That just shows you don't understand the field.

Since the problem is to determine what IS computable, limiting >>>>>>>> what you can ask to just computable things is nonsense.

Only those things that can be derived by applying
finite string transformations to inputs are computable.

So?

Requiring H(P) to report on the basis of UTM(P) is not
derivable by applying finite string transformations to
the input to H(P).

Sure it is. Why isn't UTM(P) not a valid finite string transformation? >>>>

You are not precise enough in your use of the exact
words that I precisely specified.

Really?

What did I miss, that isn't you eqivocating on the meaning of your words.

Of course, your problem is your words no longer have any meaning as
you have admitted you reserve the right to change meanings when you
want to.

You can't limit the transformations to what are actually IN H, since
that just breaks things as then every machine is correct, since it
computed the transform that it defined.

There does not exist any H(P) such that P calls
H(P) and has the same behavior as H1(P) where
P does not call H1.

So?

H is only accountable for applying finite string
transformation rules to its input finite string.

No, if H is being called a Halt Decider, it is responcible for computing
the Halting Function.

H is not accountable for baking a birthday cake.
H is not accountable for not using psychic powers.

No, but to be a halt decider, it IS responsible to the Halting Function,

H is only accountable for applying finite string
transformation rules to its input finite string.
Anything else is outside the scope of computation.

No, it CAN only do what is possible with the finite string operations
that a computation can do.

But it still is responsible to match the Halting Function.

If it can't do that, then it just fails to be a Halting Decider.

It seems that you don't care if you mis-use words, so your words no
longer have meaning.

It seems that to you, "Correctness" is optional. If you give it the
name, you can claim it to be so.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You may call yourself a "Genius",
but you prove yourself to be a stupid and ignorant pathologically lying
idiot.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 12/22/2025 3:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 2:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 2:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 1:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 1:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 1:40 PM, olcott wrote:

You are getting closer, good job !
Anything outside of what they CAN do
is outside the scope of computation.

Nope.

That just shows you don't understand the field.

Since the problem is to determine what IS computable, limiting >>>>>>>>> what you can ask to just computable things is nonsense.

Only those things that can be derived by applying
finite string transformations to inputs are computable.

So?

Requiring H(P) to report on the basis of UTM(P) is not
derivable by applying finite string transformations to
the input to H(P).

Sure it is. Why isn't UTM(P) not a valid finite string transformation? >>>>>

You are not precise enough in your use of the exact
words that I precisely specified.

Really?

What did I miss, that isn't you eqivocating on the meaning of your
words.

Of course, your problem is your words no longer have any meaning as
you have admitted you reserve the right to change meanings when you
want to.

You can't limit the transformations to what are actually IN H,
since that just breaks things as then every machine is correct,
since it computed the transform that it defined.

There does not exist any H(P) such that P calls
H(P) and has the same behavior as H1(P) where
P does not call H1.

So?

H is only accountable for applying finite string
transformation rules to its input finite string.

No, if H is being called a Halt Decider, it is responcible for computing
the Halting Function.

H is not accountable for baking a birthday cake.
H is not accountable for not using psychic powers.

No, but to be a halt decider, it IS responsible to the Halting Function,

H is only accountable for applying finite string
transformation rules to its input finite string.
Anything else is outside the scope of computation.

No, it CAN only do what is possible with the finite string operations
that a computation can do.

But it still is responsible to match the Halting Function.

Not in the case where this cannot be achieved by applying
finite string transformation rules to its input finite string.

If it can't do that, then it just fails to be a Halting Decider.

Any result that cannot be derived by applying
finite string transformation rules to an input
finite string is outside of the scope of computation.

It seems that you don't care if you mis-use words, so your words no
longer have meaning.

It seems that to you, "Correctness" is optional. If you give it the
name, you can claim it to be so.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You may call yourself a "Genius",
but you prove yourself to be a stupid and ignorant pathologically lying idiot.

--
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 12/22/25 4:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/22/2025 3:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/25 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:

H is only accountable for applying finite string
transformation rules to its input finite string.
Anything else is outside the scope of computation.

No, it CAN only do what is possible with the finite string operations
that a computation can do.

But it still is responsible to match the Halting Function.

Not in the case where this cannot be achieved by applying
finite string transformation rules to its input finite string.

Sure it is. That is the meaning of using an adjective as part of the
name. You are only an XXX Decider if your computaiton matches XXX

I guess you are just showing you don't beleive things need to be what
they claim to be.

If it can't do that, then it just fails to be a Halting Decider.

Any result that cannot be derived by applying
finite string transformation rules to an input
finite string is outside of the scope of computation.

No, but there IS a finite sting transformation. Even one performable by
a Turing Machine, just not your H. Its called a UTM.

Your problem is you just don't understand how requirements work.

Of course, that follows from you not understanding about Truth, Correct, Proof, Logic or any of a number of basics in the field.

It seems that you don't care if you mis-use words, so your words no
longer have meaning.

It seems that to you, "Correctness" is optional. If you give it the
name, you can claim it to be so.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You may call yourself a "Genius",
but you prove yourself to be a stupid and ignorant pathologically
lying idiot.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2