XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/20/2025 10:05 PM, dbush wrote:   
   > On 10/20/2025 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > You mean the words where he didn't agree with your interpretation of them?   
   >   
   >   
      
   According to a Claude AI analysis there   
   are only two interpretations and one of   
   them is wrong and the other one is my   
   interpretation.   
      
   --   
   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)