Re: All of computation and human reasoning can be encoded as finite string transformations

On 4/20/25 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:

No counter-example to the above statement exists for all
computation and all human reasoning that can be expressed
in language.

But can all Human reasoning be actually expressed in language?
For instance, how do you express the smell of a rose in a finite string so you can do reasoning with it?

 Double-talk, weasel words and ad hominem attacks count as
pure foolishness and zero rebuttal what-so-ever.

Right, and so YOUR argument is just pure foolishness.

 Finding an example of a computation that cannot be
expressed as finite string transformation rules is
the only possible valid rebuttal to the above.
 int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

Which isn't a PROGRAM, so doesn't HAVE a "Halting Behavior", or any behavior at all.
It only has behavior when the TEMPLATE is completed by adding the definition of HHH to it.
Remeber, a PROGRAM needs a full description of ALL the code used by it.

 DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of the C
language (the correct finite string transformation rules)
cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction final
halt state.

And HHH can't simulate this per the semantic of the C language.
It doesn't include the definition of HHH in it.
And, if HHH is included by reference (which isn't how it is supposed ot be included) do you get your pathological relationship.
When HHH is actually included by copy, as REQUIRED, we see that you structure is just not valid, as you intertwine the two, supposedly seperate, programs, which is the only way you code can even try to detect what it is detecting.

 Imagining what the simulated DD should do stupidly ignores
what this DD actually does. This may be dishonest instead
of stupid.
 

But what DD actually does is FULLY DEFINED by the behavior of the HHH that it is completed with.
If that HHH(DD) returns 0 (as you have defined it), then DD WILL HALT.
We don't NEED to "imagine" what it does, we can directly determine it, something HHH doesn't do because, by its definition, it gives up based on UNSOUND logic and gives the wrong answer.
The error in your logic comes from you trying to imagine HHH doing something other than what it was defined to do, while not changing the code within the input.
Sorry, YOU are the one who used "double-talk" and weasle words, when you are not just out and out lying.