XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 12/26/2025 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/26/25 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/26/2025 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/26/25 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/26/2025 4:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/26/25 1:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/26/2025 11:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/26/25 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/26/2025 11:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/26/25 11:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/26/2025 10:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/26/25 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/26/2025 9:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/26/25 8:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/26/2025 6:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/25/25 11:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/25/2025 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/25/25 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/25/2025 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/25/25 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Halting *IS* a "pure function of finite strings"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it is uncomputable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not exactly. Usually ⟨M⟩ simulated by H == UTM(⟨M⟩)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes ⟨M⟩ simulated by H != UTM(⟨M⟩)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only if H doesn't CORRECTLY simulate (M).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Correctly simulated is defined by the semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of C applied to the finite string input for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the N steps until H sees the repeating pattern.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, how does that differ from what the program actually does?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah great this is the first time that you didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> just dodge that out of hundreds of times.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever an input finite string ⟨M⟩ does not
>>>>>>>>>>>> cheat and call its own decider the input finite
>>>>>>>>>>>> string to H(⟨M⟩) is a valid proxy for UTM(⟨M⟩).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, you didn't answer the question.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How does H CORRECTLY simulate the input and get a different
>>>>>>>>>>> result from what the program does?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The finite string P H
>>>>>>>>>> is not a valid proxy to UTM(P).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, you don't understand that a string is a string and you can
>>>>>>>>> copy it elsewhere?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is a key semantic difference between a finite
>>>>>>>> string that describes behavior and the exact sequence
>>>>>>>> of steps that a finite string input specifies to a
>>>>>>>> specific instance of a decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And why is that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since the DEFINITION of semantics for strings representing
>>>>>>> programs is the operation of that program.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note, the string represents what it represents to EVERYTHING.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That definition has always been less than 100%
>>>>>> precisely accurate even when one takes the vague
>>>>>> term: "represents" with a more precise term of
>>>>>> the art-meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, nothing can be more accurate than the actual definition,
>>>>>
>>>>> You got a source for your claim, or is this just another lie out of
>>>>> your insanity.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I simply bypass all of that by defining the new
>>>>>> idea of the sequence of steps that a finite string
>>>>>> input instance specifies to its decider instance.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you don't GET to define the new idea, not without admitting you
>>>>> are leaving Computation Theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> All you are doing is admitting that you logic is built on lying,
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is a level of precision that no one bothered
>>>>>> to think about for 90 years. That this level of
>>>>>> detail is empirically proven to make an actual
>>>>>> difference conclusively validates it.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, your level of stupidity, thinking you get to redefine thing, is
>>>>> show to be great.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I said, All you have done is proved that you don't know what you
>>>>> are talking about, but are just making up lies.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can't prove your claim in the system, from the defined
>>>>> definition, your claims are just admitted lies.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
>>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into
>>>> {Accept, Reject} values.
>>>>
>>>> All that I am doing is exploring the exact details
>>>> of that. That no one else bothered to explore these
>>>> exact details is no mistake of mine.
>>>>
>>> So, your H / HH / HHH can be halt decider, at least if you define
>>> them in a way that meets the requirements, which your code doesn't,
>>> since their transform depends on hidden state.
>>>
>>
>> Implementation details are irrelevant to theoretical limits.
>
> Not if they mean they don't meet the requirements.
>
>> H does apply finite string transformation rules to its
>> input P deriving {Reject}.
>
> Which makes it a decider, not a halting decider.
>
H(P) does correctly report on the actual behavior
that its actual input actually specifies.
This makes H(P)==0 correct and everything that
disagrees incorrect.
> Your problem is you forget about that part of the meaning of the word,
> because you just don't think about requirements, as being "correct"
> isn't a thing to you, just like Truth, or Proof don't mean anything to
> you, as meaning doesn't actually have meaning to you.
>>
>> Four LLM systems have now fully agreed with all of
>> my reasoning about the general subject of undecidability.
>> ChatGPT and Claude AI have agreed in fresh brand new
>> conversations a dozen times each.
>
> Which just shows you are too stupid to know they lie.
>
>>
>> It initially took them fifty pages of dialogue to get it.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
