XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math
From: dbush.mobile@gmail.com
On 10/22/2025 10:25 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/22/2025 8:50 AM, dbush wrote:
>> On 10/22/2025 9:47 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Which therefore includes the fact that HHH(DD) will return 0 and that
>> DD will subsequently halt.
>
> You keep ignoring that we are only focusing on
> DD correctly simulated by HHH.
Which doesn't exist because HHH aborts.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
