[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> Something that almost no one has the capacity to understand   
   >> is that semantics can be fully encoded directly within the   
   >> syntax.   
   >>   
   >>> But that requires you to accept that there ARE rules in the system,   
   >>> and definitions that need to be followed when talking about the   
   >>> system, which seems to need more IQ then you have.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> That I can see incoherence that you cannot see would   
   >> seem to show an error on my part from your point of   
   >> view.   
   >   
   > The fact you can't SHOW it, shows that it likely isn't there.   
   >   
   > Your problem is you have PROVEN that you don't understand the material,   
   > and thus any incoherence you think you see is almost certainly an error   
   > on your part.   
   >   
   > If you want to try to convince people you are right, you need to show   
   > actual proof of your claims, and root that proof in the actual   
   > definitions of the system, something you have shown you don't actually   
   > know.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> But the above doesn't define what an XXX Decider is.   
   >>   
   >> *It does define the scope of what deciders can do*   
   >> *It does define the scope of what deciders can do*   
   >> *It does define the scope of what deciders can do*   
   >> *It does define the scope of what deciders can do*   
   >> *It does define the scope of what deciders can do*   
   >   
   > Ok, but not what they can be asked to do.   
   >   
      
   When-so-ever whatever they are asked to do is outside   
   the scope of what they can do the requirement itself   
   is incorrect.   
      
   They can be asked to fly to the Moon in ASCII text   
   encoded a SPACE delimited sequences of binary digits.   
   "I hereby command you to fly to the Moon."   
      
   When they are defined to have the capabilities of   
   modern LLMs systems they could answer back:   
   "You must be nuts!"   
      
   > And, it seems, you don't actually understand what that means.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> This is the part that you are having great difficulty   
   >> understanding.   
   >   
   > No, you confuse ability with requirements.   
   >   
   > There is nothing wrong with requirements that turn out to not be   
   > meetable, as long as they are well defined.   
   >   
   > This is like you confuse Truth with Knowledge and your brain blows up   
   > when you need to confront their difference.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>  Note, it talks NOTHING about what makes a given decider "correct" (a   
   >>> word you don't seem to understand)   
   >>>   
   >>> Yes, your H is a decider (if you fix it to always answer), but it   
   >>> isn't a HALT decider though, as its computed results do not match th   
   >>> Halting function, which IS a valid function to ask about per the   
   >>> definition of a Semantic Property.   
   >>>   
   >>> You are just showing your ignorance of the langague.   
   >>>   
   >>> I guess you think you can submit your Persan Cat into the   
   >>> Westminister Dog Show as that show is for trained animals.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> 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)