XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/25/2025 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/25/25 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/25/2025 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/25/25 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/25/2025 8:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/25/25 8:45 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/25/2025 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/694dcae3-a210-8011-b12f-a74007045a4a   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> "Any result that cannot be derived as a pure function   
   >>>>>>   of finite strings is uncomputable."   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Deciders are not accountable for anything that   
   >>>>>> is not a pure function of their actual inputs.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> And the "Halting Function" *IS* a "Pure Function" of its input, so   
   >>>>> you are agreeing that your decider are accountable to being asked   
   >>>>> about the Halting of theinput.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> It is categorically impossible for there to   
   >>>>>> be a better measure of the actual behavior   
   >>>>>> that the actual input actually specifies   
   >>>>>> to H(P) that H computes as a pure function   
   >>>>>> of its actual input than P simulated by H.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> WRONG, and that just shows how stupid you are.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> What is your actual reasoning to show that I am incorrect?   
   >>>> Calling be stupid seems to indicate that you are baffled.   
   >>>> It certainly does not indicate that I am incorrect.   
   >>>   
   >>> Because the measure is DEFINED by the problem.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Three different LLMs have been totally convinced   
   >> a total of 50 times, you just don't understand.   
   >   
   > LLM LIE, so are not reliable sources.   
   >   
      
   *Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth*   
   "Any result that cannot be derived as a pure function   
     of finite strings is uncomputable."   
      
   When the LLMs   
   (a) apply correct semantic entailment to   
   (b) standard definitions   
   any conclusions so derived are infallible by definition.   
      
   To see that this is actually the case in a specific   
   case only requires verifying that (a) and (b) are met.   
      
   People here do not seem to have much of a clue what   
   semantic entailment** is thus are kind of helpless to   
   verify that it is correct.   
      
   **It has nothing to do with model theory.   
      
   > All you are doing is proving you can't actualy think for yourself anymore.   
   >   
   > Your world is based on LIES and FABRICATIONS.   
   >   
   > You just don't understand reality.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> I guess you don't know what the words "the halting problem is the   
   >>> problem of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer   
   >>> program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or   
   >>> continue to run forever."   
   >>>   
   >>> Or what it means to "Specify to sequence of steps the program will   
   >>> perform"?   
   >>>   
   >>> If "the behavior specified by the input" doesn't match the question   
   >>> being asked, something YOU did was wrong, as you claim you followed   
   >>> the proof, but P is DEFINED to as H about the behavior of P when run,   
   >>>   
   >>> So, if that isn't the meaning of the string, you just admitted to lying.   
   >>>   
   >>> Your problem is it seems that "requirements" are just a foreign   
   >>> concept to you, which is probably why you think it is ok for you to   
   >>> be watching kiddie porn, as those sorts of rules don't apply to you.   
   >>>   
   >>> Sorry, they DO, and all you are proving is that you are just a   
   >>> pathological liar that can't know what is right or wrong.   
   >>>   
   >>> You are just proving that your words mean nothing, and thus you logic   
   >>> can;t be based on semantics, as semantcis requires you to have   
   >>> properly defined meaning.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> That CAN'T be the measure for a Halt Decider.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> What is you logic to make this claim?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Already fully provided and you ignored it or   
   >>>> it was over-your-head. I don't think it was   
   >>>> over-your-head. You do seem to have all the   
   >>>> basic ideas correctly.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> It seems to just come out of your ignorance.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Sorry, but you have PROVES that you presumptions are just bad, and   
   >>>>> that you are just a pathological liar.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)