Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly
 met
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 00:25:52 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <fbc57a32a33583673c91f0d152e0743c3dd67880@i2pn2.org>
References: <vvte01$14pca$29@dont-email.me> <vvte62$15ceh$18@dont-email.me>
 <vvtej1$181kg$1@dont-email.me> <vvtjj8$15ceh$19@dont-email.me>
 <vvtl1g$19cvp$1@dont-email.me> <vvtlmm$15ceh$20@dont-email.me>
 <vvto7c$1a1pf$1@dont-email.me> <vvtpqu$1agqu$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvtq8d$1a1pf$2@dont-email.me> <vvtqn1$1agqu$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvtsmf$1aube$1@dont-email.me> <vvtsq5$1agqu$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvttf7$1bfib$1@dont-email.me> <vvu008$1c062$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvu0mm$1c0vi$1@dont-email.me> <vvu0si$1c062$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvu1m8$1c86j$1@dont-email.me> <vvu2q2$1c062$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvu3ht$1c86j$3@dont-email.me> <vvu3lm$1c062$5@dont-email.me>
 <vvu42d$1cmbo$1@dont-email.me> <vvu46e$1c062$6@dont-email.me>
 <vvu5ch$1csst$1@dont-email.me> <vvu5j3$1c062$7@dont-email.me>
 <vvu5uk$1d27t$1@dont-email.me> <vvu88j$1c062$9@dont-email.me>
 <vvu95f$1deu5$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 04:26:09 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="127709"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vvu95f$1deu5$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3613
Lines: 42

On 5/12/25 10:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> 
> If the Goldbach conjecture is true (and there is
> no short-cut) this requires testing against every
> element of the set of natural numbers an infinite
> computation.
> 
> *That had nothing to do with this point*
> 
>  >> Exactly what actual reasoning shows that this
>  >> is superior to reporting on the behavior that
>  >> its input actual specifies?


Well, since the behavior of the input for a halt decider is DEFINED to 
be the behavior of the program that it describes.

That means that *YOU* are the one advocating to answer about something 
other than that.

I don't know where the comment about the Goldbach conjecture came from 
on this thread, but the other discussion on that just illustrte that you 
don't understand the nature of Turth.

If the only path that establishes a statement is a infinite series of 
deductive steps, then that statement is still true. It is just unprovable.

The fact that you try to argue otherwise just points out how out of 
touch you are with the basics of logic.

Yes, there are some logic field that don't let an infinte chain of 
actions, that don't have a finite chain do that to, make a statement 
true, but those do that by not having any such statements, as everything 
can either be estabished, refuted, or shown to be not a truth-bearer 
with a finite chain of steps as the logci system is limited.

But none of the theory you try to talk about are about such limited 
fields, as they require, in effect, the ability to have the properties 
of the infintie set of Natural Numbers, which is part of the power that 
gives us this "problem" of incompleteness and undeciability.

Logic system over finite fields don't have that sort of problem, but are 
very limited in their usefulness.