XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   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.   
      
   In the case of HHH(DD) the above requires HHH to   
   report on the behavior of its caller and HHH has   
   no way to even know who its caller is.   
      
   My simulating halt decider exposed the gap of   
   false assumptions because there are no assumptions   
   everything is fully operational code.   
      
   --   
   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)