XPost: comp.theory
From: 643-408-1753@kylheku.com

On 2025-10-28, olcott  wrote:
> On 10/28/2025 5:03 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-10-28, olcott  wrote:
>>> On 10/28/2025 4:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-10-28, olcott  wrote:
>>>>> On 10/28/2025 2:37 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-10-28, olcott  wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/28/2025 11:35 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-28, olcott  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Deciders only compute a mapping from their actual
>>>>>>>>> inputs. Computing the mapping from non-inputs is
>>>>>>>>> outside of the scope of Turing machines.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Calculating the halting of certain inputs is indeed impossible
>>>>>>>> for some halting algorithms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not just impossible outside of the scope of every Turing machine.
>>>>>>> Its the same kind of thing as requiring the purely mental object
>>>>>>> of a Turing machine to bake a birthday cake.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It simply isn't. Inputs that are not correctly solvable by some
>>>>>> deciders are decided by some others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> THIS INPUT IS SOLVABLE
>>>>> THE NON-INPUT IS OUT-OF-SCOPE
>>>>>
>>>>> DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THAT 10,000
>>>>> TIME BEFORE YOU NOTICE THAT I EVER SAID IT ONCE?
>>>>
>>>> You have not said anything substantial about this even once.
>>>
>>> Do you understand that deciders only report on their inputs?
>>
>> I understand that there only exist inputs.
>
> That's a crazy thing to say. I own a car and it is not an input.

Note that a car is not an input to some halting deciders, but a
non-input to others.

If X is an input to any halting decider, it is an input to all.

So for practical purposes, we need no think about non-inputs like cars;
they are not interesting and we can confine our thinking strictly to the
universe of inputs.

There are no non-inputs (that are relevant and worth discussing).

>> Do you understand that we can design a description language for
>> Turing Machines in which any sequence of 1's and 0's is
>> valid?
>>
>> Then all possible bit strings are valid inputs, making it
>> redundant to emphasize that deciders only operate on inputs.
>>
>
> None-the-less I do have an important discovery in

"None the less" means "In spite of what you say being correct ...".

> computer science if you could only bother to pay
> complete attention. That you tried to say that my
> car does not exist shows a woeful lack of precision
> in your choice of words.
>


--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)