On 12/20/25 8:00 AM, polcott wrote:
On 12/19/2025 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/19/25 5:07 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 18/12/2025 04:29, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/17/25 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/17/2025 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 16/12/2025 19:30, olcott wrote:
(a) TMs only transform input finite strings to values
using finite string transformation rules.
(b) There exists no alternative more definitive measure
of the behavior that the input to H(P) specifies (within
finite string transformation rules) than P simulated by H.
The halting problem does not ask about a string. It asks about
a meaning, which is a computation. Therefore the measure of the
behaviour is the computation asked about. If the input string
does not specify that behaviour then it is a wrong string.
It asks about the semantic meaning that its
input finite string specifies. (See Rice)
And "Semantic Meaning" relates to directly running the program the
input
represents, something you are trying to say is out of scope, but that >>>>> means that you are trying to put semantics out of scope.
eh? I'm sure it relates to what /would/ have happened if you directly
run it, and other properties. You may infer them by other means such as >>>> by translating the program to an input for a different machine and
running that which then reports or fails to report on properties of the >>>> original program; that includes, but is not limited to, halting with
the
same final state as the original program would on.
"Meaning" should have a single source of truth. There may be
alternate ways to determine it, but those are shown to be correct, by
being able to trace it back to that original source.
Rice's proof was based on defined "Semantics" of strings representing
machines, as having that meaning established by the running of the
program the input represents.
The halt decider cannot run a machine it can
only apply finite string transformation rules
to input finite strings.
So?
It doesn't need to run the machine, only give an answer that is
correctly determined by doing so.
It isn't much of a test if you require that every question include the answer as part of the question.--
You don't seem to understand the concept of REQUIREMENTS.
But then, since you seem to reject the basic concept of Truth and Correctness, that seems consistant with your logic system.
On 12/20/2025 7:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/20/25 8:00 AM, polcott wrote:
On 12/19/2025 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/19/25 5:07 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 18/12/2025 04:29, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/17/25 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/17/2025 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 16/12/2025 19:30, olcott wrote:
(a) TMs only transform input finite strings to values
using finite string transformation rules.
(b) There exists no alternative more definitive measure
of the behavior that the input to H(P) specifies (within
finite string transformation rules) than P simulated by H.
The halting problem does not ask about a string. It asks about >>>>>>>> a meaning, which is a computation. Therefore the measure of the >>>>>>>> behaviour is the computation asked about. If the input string
does not specify that behaviour then it is a wrong string.
It asks about the semantic meaning that its
input finite string specifies. (See Rice)
And "Semantic Meaning" relates to directly running the program the >>>>>> input
represents, something you are trying to say is out of scope, but that >>>>>> means that you are trying to put semantics out of scope.
eh? I'm sure it relates to what /would/ have happened if you directly >>>>> run it, and other properties. You may infer them by other means
such as
by translating the program to an input for a different machine and
running that which then reports or fails to report on properties of >>>>> the
original program; that includes, but is not limited to, halting
with the
same final state as the original program would on.
"Meaning" should have a single source of truth. There may be
alternate ways to determine it, but those are shown to be correct,
by being able to trace it back to that original source.
Rice's proof was based on defined "Semantics" of strings
representing machines, as having that meaning established by the
running of the program the input represents.
The halt decider cannot run a machine it can
only apply finite string transformation rules
to input finite strings.
So?
It doesn't need to run the machine, only give an answer that is
correctly determined by doing so.
Deciders: Transform finite strings by finite string
transformation rules into {Accept, Reject}.
In cases of a pathological self-reference relationship
between Decider H and Input P such that there are no
finite string transformation rules that H can apply to
P to derive the behavior of UTM(P) the behavior of UTM(P)
is overruled as out-of-scope for Turing machine deciders.
It isn't much of a test if you require that every question include the
answer as part of the question.
You don't seem to understand the concept of REQUIREMENTS.
But then, since you seem to reject the basic concept of Truth and
Correctness, that seems consistant with your logic system.
On 12/20/25 9:07 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/20/2025 7:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/20/25 8:00 AM, polcott wrote:
On 12/19/2025 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/19/25 5:07 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 18/12/2025 04:29, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/17/25 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/17/2025 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 16/12/2025 19:30, olcott wrote:
(a) TMs only transform input finite strings to values
using finite string transformation rules.
(b) There exists no alternative more definitive measure
of the behavior that the input to H(P) specifies (within
finite string transformation rules) than P simulated by H.
The halting problem does not ask about a string. It asks about >>>>>>>>> a meaning, which is a computation. Therefore the measure of the >>>>>>>>> behaviour is the computation asked about. If the input string >>>>>>>>> does not specify that behaviour then it is a wrong string.
It asks about the semantic meaning that its
input finite string specifies. (See Rice)
And "Semantic Meaning" relates to directly running the program
the input
represents, something you are trying to say is out of scope, but >>>>>>> that
means that you are trying to put semantics out of scope.
eh? I'm sure it relates to what /would/ have happened if you directly >>>>>> run it, and other properties. You may infer them by other means
such as
by translating the program to an input for a different machine and >>>>>> running that which then reports or fails to report on properties
of the
original program; that includes, but is not limited to, halting
with the
same final state as the original program would on.
"Meaning" should have a single source of truth. There may be
alternate ways to determine it, but those are shown to be correct,
by being able to trace it back to that original source.
Rice's proof was based on defined "Semantics" of strings
representing machines, as having that meaning established by the
running of the program the input represents.
The halt decider cannot run a machine it can
only apply finite string transformation rules
to input finite strings.
So?
It doesn't need to run the machine, only give an answer that is
correctly determined by doing so.
Deciders: Transform finite strings by finite string
transformation rules into {Accept, Reject}.
Right,
In cases of a pathological self-reference relationship
between Decider H and Input P such that there are no
finite string transformation rules that H can apply to
P to derive the behavior of UTM(P) the behavior of UTM(P)
is overruled as out-of-scope for Turing machine deciders.
But since H is (or needs to be) a Turing Machine, the copy of it in P
gives some definite answer,
and thus P has a definite behavior, and thus
UTM(P) does have a definite behavior, defining the right answer that H should have given.
The fact that H didn't give that answer, just makes H wrong.
The fact that the claimed "UTM" at H.UTM doesn't match the behavior of
the actual P just says you LIE when you call it a UTM.
All you are doing is proving you are just a stupid liar.
LIES do not overrule truth, except in the mind of a pathological liar.
Note, the behavior of UTM(P) is NOT out of scope of Turing Machine
deciders, just not computable with finite work.
There is a difference, but that seems to be beyond your self-imposed ignorant understanding.
It isn't much of a test if you require that every question include
the answer as part of the question.
You don't seem to understand the concept of REQUIREMENTS.
But then, since you seem to reject the basic concept of Truth and
Correctness, that seems consistant with your logic system.
On 12/20/2025 8:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/20/25 9:07 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/20/2025 7:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/20/25 8:00 AM, polcott wrote:
On 12/19/2025 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/19/25 5:07 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 18/12/2025 04:29, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/17/25 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/17/2025 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 16/12/2025 19:30, olcott wrote:
The halting problem does not ask about a string. It asks about >>>>>>>>>> a meaning, which is a computation. Therefore the measure of the >>>>>>>>>> behaviour is the computation asked about. If the input string >>>>>>>>>> does not specify that behaviour then it is a wrong string. >>>>>>>>>>
(a) TMs only transform input finite strings to values
using finite string transformation rules.
(b) There exists no alternative more definitive measure
of the behavior that the input to H(P) specifies (within >>>>>>>>>>> finite string transformation rules) than P simulated by H. >>>>>>>>>>
It asks about the semantic meaning that its
input finite string specifies. (See Rice)
And "Semantic Meaning" relates to directly running the program >>>>>>>> the input
represents, something you are trying to say is out of scope, but >>>>>>>> that
means that you are trying to put semantics out of scope.
eh? I'm sure it relates to what /would/ have happened if you
directly
run it, and other properties. You may infer them by other means >>>>>>> such as
by translating the program to an input for a different machine and >>>>>>> running that which then reports or fails to report on properties >>>>>>> of the
original program; that includes, but is not limited to, halting >>>>>>> with the
same final state as the original program would on.
"Meaning" should have a single source of truth. There may be
alternate ways to determine it, but those are shown to be correct, >>>>>> by being able to trace it back to that original source.
Rice's proof was based on defined "Semantics" of strings
representing machines, as having that meaning established by the
running of the program the input represents.
The halt decider cannot run a machine it can
only apply finite string transformation rules
to input finite strings.
So?
It doesn't need to run the machine, only give an answer that is
correctly determined by doing so.
Deciders: Transform finite strings by finite string
transformation rules into {Accept, Reject}.
Right,
In cases of a pathological self-reference relationship
between Decider H and Input P such that there are no
finite string transformation rules that H can apply to
P to derive the behavior of UTM(P) the behavior of UTM(P)
is overruled as out-of-scope for Turing machine deciders.
But since H is (or needs to be) a Turing Machine, the copy of it in P
gives some definite answer,
P simulated by H cannot possibly receive
any return value from H because it remains
stuck in recursive simulation until aborted.
The caller of H cannot possibly be one-and-the-same
thing as the argument to H.
and thus P has a definite behavior, and thus
That cannot be derived by H applying finite string
transformation rules to its input P.
UTM(P) does have a definite behavior, defining the right answer that H
should have given.
Yet UTM(P) specifies a different sequence of steps.
After the simulation of P has been aborted as opposed
to and contrast with before the simulation has been
aborted.
The fact that H didn't give that answer, just makes H wrong.
The fact that the claimed "UTM" at H.UTM doesn't match the behavior of
the actual P just says you LIE when you call it a UTM.
All you are doing is proving you are just a stupid liar.
LIES do not overrule truth, except in the mind of a pathological liar.
Note, the behavior of UTM(P) is NOT out of scope of Turing Machine
deciders, just not computable with finite work.
There is a difference, but that seems to be beyond your self-imposed
ignorant understanding.
It isn't much of a test if you require that every question include
the answer as part of the question.
You don't seem to understand the concept of REQUIREMENTS.
But then, since you seem to reject the basic concept of Truth and
Correctness, that seems consistant with your logic system.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 17:44:04 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
4 files (8,203K bytes) |
| Messages: | 184,414 |
| Posted today: | 1 |