XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/16/2025 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > On 2025-11-15 15:51:45 +0000, olcott said:   
   >   
   >> On 11/15/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-11-14 14:33:11 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 11/14/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2025-11-13 16:06:50 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 11/13/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 18:12:44 +0000, Alan Mackenzie said:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> [ .... ]   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not   
   >>>>>>>>> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong]   
   >>>>>>>>> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this   
   >>>>>>>>> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> The huge disadvantage of LLM systems is that they begin their   
   >>>>>>>> review on   
   >>>>>>>> the basis that Olcott is right.  Intelligent people do not do this.   
   >>>>>>>> They evaluate what Olcott has written and pronounce it either   
   >>>>>>>> right or   
   >>>>>>>> (much more usually) wrong.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Honest intelligent people don't pronounce anything they don't   
   >>>>>>> have seen   
   >>>>>>> before right. The nearest they can say is "no obvious errors" or   
   >>>>>>> "looks   
   >>>>>>> good" or something that means the same. To actually check something   
   >>>>>>> takes more time and work.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Most people are sheep when they see something that does   
   >>>>>> not conform to conventional wisdom they reject it.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Syntax error. There are three clauses but it is not clear which words   
   >>>>> belong to which.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It is not a good idea to reject conventional or other wisdom without   
   >>>>> a good reason. Even with a good reason it is not a good idea to reject   
   >>>>> more than what the good reason requires.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 99% of experts will reject something that does not conform   
   >>>> to convention wisdom without even looking at it.   
   >>>   
   >>> How many experts you asked? If you ony asked 100 experts then 99% is an   
   >>> inaccurate result.   
   >>   
   >> I asked about 200 experts in dozens of different forums   
   >> and all of them rejected my ideas out-of-hand without   
   >> even looking at them.   
   >   
   > How did you determine "without eve looking at them"?   
   >   
      
   A tenured PhD computer science professor   
   has a very well documented equivalent   
   experience many different times in many   
   different ways.   
      
   "Something is wrong with the halting problem"   
   is immediately translated into {crackpot}.   
      
   The way that I can tell in my hundreds of   
   cases is that they said I was wrong and   
   never provided any reasoning what-so-ever   
   about how and why I was wrong.   
      
   Technical people in the fields of computer   
   science, math and logic has an emotional   
   attachment to the foundational assumptions   
   that is equivalent to a religion.   
      
   On the sole basis that the reasoning is correct   
   within these foundational assumptions they   
   construe this as absolute proof that these   
   assumptions are true.   
      
   It is like they don't have a clue that sound   
   deduction is not the same as valid deduction.   
      
   A deductive argument is sound if and only if   
   it is both valid, and all of its premises are   
   actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument   
   is unsound. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)