Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH(DD) --- COMPUTE ACTUAL MAPPING FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT --- Using Finite String Transformations
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 12:16:16 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <vu7mp0$9l1s$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@dont-email.me> <vthqtc$5g2e$2@dont-email.me> <63af93cb608258cc3e12b9bab3a2efa0b7ee7eee@i2pn2.org> <vtit6a$15e5s$3@dont-email.me> <vtivmo$19aqd$1@dont-email.me> <vtkc4l$2h48g$3@dont-email.me> <vtkdnm$2iqu5$1@dont-email.me> <vtkkge$2si58$2@dont-email.me> <vtl56j$3aajg$1@dont-email.me> <vtlu0a$3vgp0$1@dont-email.me> <vtm04f$2a90$1@dont-email.me> <vtm9q8$aut7$1@dont-email.me> <vtmah8$2a90$2@dont-email.me> <vtmgen$gs48$1@dont-email.me> <vtmh1n$2a90$3@dont-email.me> <vto4vh$23i07$1@dont-email.me> <vto7qu$267in$1@dont-email.me> <k%RLP.1232047$Xb1.539402@fx05.ams4> <vtorpb$2uac$1@news.muc.de> <vtp32o$2vb5o$1@dont-email.me> <vtqpt5$17ns$1@news.muc.de> <vtrhbc$16pbv$2@dont-email.me> <vtrk7l$t44$1@news.muc.de> <vtrmfa$1be3n$1@dont-email.me> <vtvkgo$vjvi$1@dont-email.me> <vu2042$34l74$1@dont-email.me> <vu519u$1s5f9$1@dont-email.me> <vu6aha$2vn05$3@dont-email.me> <vu6dk4$2fq2$1@news.muc.de> <vu6knm$394oo$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 11:16:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="77e99febd2ea8fbd06e9bc59456aaf8d";
	logging-data="316476"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+R8L1Q+voqwcjelkxpoIDk"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7L+KUSJSSknmfWoO7oDLkCUHlHg=

On 2025-04-21 23:35:16 +0000, olcott said:

> On 4/21/2025 4:33 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/21/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-04-20 05:18:56 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>>>> On 4/19/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-04-17 19:57:30 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>>>>>> On 4/17/2025 2:19 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2025 6:49 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2025 1:09 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 13:29:18 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>>> [ .... ]
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> All of logic, reasoning and computation boils down to finite string
>>>>>>>>>>> transformations on inputs deriving outputs.
>> 
>>>>>>>>>> That's a big assertion, one you have not proved.  It is one you
>>>>>>>>>> can't prove, even were it true, since you don't understand the
>>>>>>>>>> concept of proof.
>> 
>>>>>>>>> When a categorically exhaustive search is made it is self-evident
>>>>>>>>> that all computation, logic, and human reasoning has as its
>>>>>>>>> barest possible essence transforming input finite strings into
>>>>>>>>> outputs via finite string transformations.
>> 
>>>>>>>> It is not at all self-evident.
>> 
>>>>>>> It is self-evident that there are no exceptions to the rule
>>>>>>> the all truth that is entirely anchored in fully formalized
>>>>>>> semantics an be expressed as finite string transformations
>>>>>>> from input finite strings.
>> 
>>>>>> It seems that there is an error above as I can't parse it. But it is
>>>>>> not clear how that should be corrected.
>> 
>>>>> All mental, computational or logical reasoning
>>>>> boils down to finite string transformation rules
>>>>> applied to finite strings deriving finite string
>>>>> outputs.
>> 
>>>>> That no counter-example to this rule exists is its proof.
>> 
>>>> Unproven non-existence of counter-examples is not a proof. In particular
>>>> mental reasoning is too poorly understood to be sure about anything.
>> 
>>> In other words you cannot find a counter-example.
>>> I claim that the entire category of counter-example
>>> to the above statement is the empty set.
>> 
>> You're being stupid.  Just because you can't think up a counterexample
>> doesn't mean other more intelligent people can't.
>> 
>>> When you try and find any computation that is not
>>> essentially finite string transformations to finite
>>> strings it is self-evident that none can possibly exist.
>> 
>> It's self evident only to the arrogantly stupid.
> 
> All computation is isomorphic to:
> Finite string transformations to finite strings.

You can say that but you can't prove that. You can't even tell what
that isomorfism is or how it applies to a slide rule.

-- 
Mikko