XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: dbush.mobile@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/22/2025 7:56 AM, olcott wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   False:   
      
   (,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly   
   (,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)