XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: dbush.mobile@gmail.com   
      
   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?   
      
      
      
   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   
    > work I think it's clear that Sipser did not take the "minor remark" he   
    > agreed to to mean what PO takes it to mean!  My own take if that he   
    > (Sipser) read it as a general remark about how to determine some cases,   
    > i.e. that D names an input that H can partially simulate to determine   
    > it's halting or otherwise.  We all know or could construct some such   
    > cases.   
    >   
    > I suspect he was tricked because PO used H and D as the names without   
    > making it clear that D was constructed from H in the usual way (Sipser   
    > uses H and D in at least one of his proofs).  Of course, he is clued in   
    > enough know that, if D is indeed constructed from H like that, the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)