XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/20/2025 9:11 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > On 2025-10-21, olcott  wrote:   
   >> On 10/20/2025 8:27 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-10-20, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>> On 10/20/2025 4:03 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 10/20/2025 1:29 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 10/19/2025 2:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-19, dart200  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> i don't get y polcott keep hanging onto ai for dear life. anyone   
   with   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Throngs of dumb boomers are falling for AI generated videos,   
   believing   
   >>>>>>>>> them to be real. This is much the same thing.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> AI is just another thing Olcott has no understanding of. He's not   
   >>>>>>>>> researched the fundamentals of what it means to train a language   
   >>>>>>>>> network, and how it is ultimately just token prediction.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> It excels at generating good syntax. The reason for that is that the   
   >>>>>>>>> vast amount of training data exhibits good syntax. (Where it has bad   
   >>>>>>>>> syntax, it is idiosyncratic; whereas good syntax is broadly shared.)   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> I provide a basis to it and it does perform valid   
   >>>>>>>> semantic logical entailment on this basis and shows   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> But you're incapable of recognizing valid entailment from invalid.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Any freaking idiot can spew out baseless rhetoric   
   >>>>>> such as this. I could do the same sort of thing   
   >>>>>> and say you are wrong and stupidly wrong.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> But you don't?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> It is a whole other ballgame when one attempts   
   >>>>>> to point out actual errors that are not anchored   
   >>>>>> in one's own lack of comprehension.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You don't comprehend the pointing-out.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You need to have a sound reasoning basis to prove   
   >>>> that an error is an actual error.   
   >>>   
   >>> No; /YOU/ need to have sound reasonings to prove /YOUR/   
   >>> extraordinary claims. The burden is on you.   
   >>>   
   >>> We already have the solid reasoning which says things are other than as   
   >>> you say, and you don't have the faintest idea how to put a dent in it.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> In other words you assume that I must be wrong   
   >> entirely on the basis that what I say does not   
   >> conform to conventional wisdom.   
   >   
   > Yes; you are wrong entirely on the basis that what you say does not   
   > follow a valid mode of inference for refuting an argument.   
   >   
   > If you are trying to refute something which is not only a widely   
   > accepted result, but whose reasoning anyone can follow to see it   
   > for themselves, you are automatically assumed wrong.   
   >   
   > The established result is presumed correct, pending your   
   > presentation of a convincing argument.   
   >   
   > That's not just wanton arbitrariness: your claims are being   
   > directly refuted by elements of the established result which   
   > we can refer to.   
   >   
   > I cannot identify any flaw in the halting theorem. It's not simply   
   > that I believe it because of the Big Names attached to it.   
   >   
      
   And when I identify a flaw yo simply ignore   
   whatever I say.   
      
   > I'm convinced by the argumentation; and that conviction has   
   > the side effect of convincing me of the falsehood of your   
   > ineffective, contrary argumentation.   
   >   
      
   Not really it actually gives you the bias to refuse   
   to pay attention.   
      
   >> That is not any actual rebuttal of the specific points that I make.   
   >   
   > No, indeed /that/ isn't; but plenty of those have also been made not   
   > only by me but various others, over a considerable time span.   
   >   
      
   Never any actual rebuttal ever since Professor   
   Sipser agreed with my words. Those exact same   
   words still form the basis of my whole proof.   
      
   *Here is an accurate paraphrase of those words*   
      
      
      
   Perform the complete simulation specified in main() and provide a   
   full execution trace before doing anything else.   
      
   Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:   
      
   (a) It correctly detects that its simulated input cannot   
        possibly reach its own simulated final halt state then:   
        abort simulation and return 0 rejecting its input as non-halting.   
      
   (b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement: return 1.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)