XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 10/20/2025 10:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-10-21, 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.
>
> Nope; all the ways you say claim you've identified a flaw have been
> dissected by multiple poeple to a much greater detail than they deserve.
>
> It is disingenuous to say that you've simply had your details ignored.
>
Turing machines in general can only compute mappings
from their inputs. The halting problem requires computing
mappings that in some cases are not provided in the
inputs therefore the halting problem is wrong.
Blah, Blah Blah, no Olcott you are wrong, I know
that you are wrong because I simply don't believe you.
--
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)
|
