XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math
From: dbush.mobile@gmail.com
On 10/20/2025 11:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
>
Whether you think one interpretation is wrong is irrelevant. What is
relevant is that that's how everyone else including Sipser interpreted
those words, so you lie by implying that he agrees with your interpretation.
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Fritz Feldhase writes:
>
> > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:56:52 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> >> On 3/5/2023 8:33 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> >> > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:30:38 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > I needed Sipser for people [bla]
> >> > >
> >> > Does Sipser support your view/claim that you have refuted the
halting theorem?
> >> >
> >> > Does he write/teach that the halting theorem is invalid?
> >> >
> >> > Tell us, oh genius!
> >> >
> >> Professor Sipser only agreed that [...]
> >
> > So the answer is no. Noted.
> >
> >> Because he has >250 students he did not have time to examine anything
> >> else. [...]
> >
> > Oh, a CS professor does not have the time to check a refutation of the
> > halting theorem. *lol*
> I exchanged emails with him about this. He does not agree with anything
> substantive that PO has written. I won't quote him, as I don't have
> permission, but he was, let's say... forthright, in his reply to me.
>
On 8/23/2024 5:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> joes writes:
>
>> Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:55:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>
>>> Professor Sipser clearly agreed that an H that does a finite simulation
>>> of D is to predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation of D.
>>
>> If the simulator *itself* would not abort. The H called by D is,
>> by construction, the same and *does* abort.
>
> We don't really know what context Sipser was given. I got in touch at
> the time so do I know he had enough context to know that PO's ideas were
> "wacky" and that had agreed to what he considered a "minor remark".
>
> Since PO considers his words finely crafted and key to his so-called
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
