XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/24/2025 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/24/25 10:49 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>   
   >> By objective measures, a Mensa IQ test I am   
   >> in the top 3%. Where are you by these same   
   >> objective measures? I would say that you are   
   >> at least in the top 20%, maybe much higher.   
   >   
   > But it is well know that single test are not an accurate measure of   
   > actual intelligence.   
   >   
      
   In other words you know that your IQ is much lower?   
   I know that you are much higher than the normal of   
   100 IQ. No one below 100 is stupid. You are at least   
   some degree of smart. Even 115 IQ is smart, smart   
   enough to graduate college.   
      
   >>   
   >>> as you deceive yourself into thinking you "know" things, when they   
   >>> have no real basis. You have chosen to forgo actual logic for the   
   >>> fantasies of your own mind, and you have chosen to ignore reality.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> It is all a matter of your lack of ability to   
   >> pay complete attention. You have never been   
   >> able to show the tiniest actual mistake in   
   >> anything that I have ever said and prove that   
   >> it is an actual mistake with correct reasoning.'   
   >   
   > No, I pay attention, but you don't.   
   >   
   > Your failure to answer the errors pointed out prove that you are not   
   > interested in truth, and/or are unable to learn.   
   >   
      
   The only "errors" that anyone every pointed out   
   were never ERRORS in the absolute sense. The   
   were only "errors" within the assumption that   
   the conventional view is infallible.   
      
   >>   
   >> The best that you have every done is show that   
   >> what I am saying does not conform to the   
   >> convention view.   
   >   
   > But, your problem is that by the "conventional view" what you meam is   
   > the DEFINED view for the problem you claim to be working in.   
   >   
   > You don't understand that changing it and staying in it is not an option.   
   >   
      
   The conventional view has several key definitions.   
   Some of these definitions contradict other definitions   
   within this same system.   
      
   >>   
   >>> That is the height of stupidity.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I don't know how attention deficit disorder works.   
   >>>> I have the opposite hyper focus super power.   
   >>>   
   >>> And you "hyper focus" on your delusions, and ignore the facts.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Your "facts" are the mere dogma of the conventional   
   >> view. Expressions of language that are impossibly false   
   >> within a definition are derived by applying correct   
   >> semantic entailment to this definition.   
   >   
   > No, they are the DEFINITION of the system.   
   >   
      
   Yes they are. Yet they contradict other definitions   
   of this same system and that is their error. You   
   are smart and capable of understanding me. You did   
   just bring up a crucially important point.   
      
   > It seems you lack the understanding of what is actually true in a system.   
   >   
      
   It never has been this. It probably did seem   
   like this before I could translate my mere   
   intuitions into first principles derived from   
   standard definitions.   
      
   >>   
   >> The is what I have just achieved in the last two weeks.   
   >>   
   >> You have not even shows that you know what   
   >> "semantic entailment" is. If you do not   
   >> even know what it is then you cannot know   
   >> the details of how it works.   
   >   
   > No, your problem is I don't agree to your lies.   
   >   
      
   My statement was not asking for mere rhetoric.   
   It asked for you to show that you understand what   
   "semantic entailment" is and how it works.   
      
   When is answered by mere rhetoric this indicates   
   that you have no clue what "semantic entailment"   
   is and how it works.   
      
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I would estimate (possibly incorrectly) The ADD   
   >>>> could be circumvented in isolated cases by reading   
   >>>> the same words over-and-over many times.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> My first principles are not yet completely perfected.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> But, until you decide that you are going to be makeing a brand new   
   >>> system, and accept that your system says nothing about the existing   
   >>> systems, you don't get to make a "first principle"   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> First principles derived from standard definitions   
   >> do not define a new system. They do point out errors   
   >> of incoherence in the existing system. The only thing   
   >> that seems to be incorrect in the theory of computation   
   >> is the notion of undecidability.   
   >   
   > But since yours don't, or at least your interpretations of them don't,   
   > the are not valid.   
   >   
      
   (1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string   
   inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   {Accept, Reject} values.   
      
   Here is the same thing more formally and less clearly.   
      
   Definition: Turing-Machine Decider D   
      
   A Turing-machine decider D is a Turing machine that computes   
   a total function D : Σ* → {Accept, Reject}. That is:   
      
   1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ*, D   
   halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.   
      
   > For instance, Halting is an objective measure, and thus NOT based on the   
   > deciders own action.   
   >   
      
   Not according to the above two definitions.   
      
   > You have not actually pointed out an "incoherence" in the system, as   
   > every claimed incoherence comes AFTER you have added a non-sense rule to   
   > the system.   
   >   
   > This is because you just don't know what yo are talking about.   
   >   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott

   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make 
   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
   
   reliably computable.

   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation
   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)