XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/22/2025 8:00 AM, dbush wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   That includes that DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive   
   simulation.   
      
      
      
   --   
   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)