Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics

On 09/07/2026 06:19, olcott wrote:
> On 7/8/2026 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 06/07/2026 18:27, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/6/2026 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 04/07/2026 19:58, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/4/2026 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/07/2026 05:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 9:19 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 8:58 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 9:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 5:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-03 16:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:47 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-03 12:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:18 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If an algorithm takes an input and produces an output, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is by definition a mapping. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That only proves that the definition is incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The coherent way that it actually works is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs are transformed into outputs by applying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string transformation rules to inputs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derive outputs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently you don't understand the difference between a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mapping and an algorithm. They are two different things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A function that ignores its input and only returns 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not any sort of halt function.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He was defining 'mapping', not 'halt function'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A actual halt function must compute 
>>>>>>>>>> The mathematical halting function:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When you actually implement this concretely 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We find that it is not possible, as Linz and others have proved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Impossible requirements are incorrect requirements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no well known meaning of "incorrect requirements".
>>>>>
>>>>> I just established the meaning of incorrect requirements
>>>>> as any requirement that requires the logically impossible.
>>>>
>>>> That is insufficient to make the expression "incorrect requirements"
>>>> meaningful in Common Language or well known.
>>>
>>> In other words if the requirement is to compute the square
>>> root of the actual dead flesh of a dead chicken you would
>>> not reject this out-of hand?
>>
>> Depends on what yuo count as rejection. I don't think I would
>> try to meet that requirement.
>>
> 
> Incorrect decision problem requirements.

The requirements are correct if the problem cannot be solved without
meeting the requirements but is solved when the requirements are met.

-- 
Mikko