XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math
From: dbush.mobile@gmail.com
On 10/22/2025 8:48 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/22/2025 7:25 AM, dbush wrote:
>> 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
>>
>
> Yes that it the exact error that I have been
> referring to.
That is not an error. That is simply a mapping that you have admitted
exists.
>
> In the case of HHH(DD) the above requires HHH to
> report on the behavior of its caller
False. It requires HHH to report on the behavior of the machine
described by its input.
int main {
DD() // this
HHH(DD) // is not the caller of this
return 0;
}
> and HHH has
> no way to even know who its caller is.
Irrelevant.
>
> My simulating halt decider
in other words, something that uses simulation to compute the following
mapping:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X
described as with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the
following mapping:
(,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
> exposed the gap of
> false assumptions
The only false assumption is that the above requirements can be
satisfied, which Turing and Linz proved to be false and that you have
*explicitly* agreed with.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
