XPost: sci.logic, sci.lang, alt.philosophy   
   XPost: comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/3/2026 4:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/3/26 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 1/3/2026 1:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 1/3/26 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 1/3/2026 8:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 1/3/26 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 1/2/2026 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 1/2/26 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Collection is defined one or more things that have one   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or more properties in common. These operations from set   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory are available: {⊆, ∈}   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or formal)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> language L that has been assigned the semantic property of   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> True. (Similar to a math Axiom).   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate foundation of the notion of Truth in language L.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To verify that an expression X of language L is True or   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> False only requires a syntactic logical consequence   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inference chain (formal proof) from one or more elements   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of T to X or ~X.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, X) ↔ ∃Γ ⊆ BaseFact(L) Provable(Γ, X)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> False(L, X) ↔ ∃Γ ⊆ BaseFact(L) Provable(Γ, ~X)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2018 (and many other years since 1997) Pete Olcott   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that can be   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> formalized symbolically.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> All of formalized Truth is only about relations between   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings of characters.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> This exact same Truth can be equally expressed (tokenized)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> as relations between integers.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> 2026 update   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> is entirely expressed as relations between finite strings   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> of characters.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> This by itself makes   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> reliably computable.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> No, not until you can do the first, which you can't unless   
   >>>>>>>>>>> you make you system "small".   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> All you are doing it proving you don't understand what you   
   >>>>>>>>>>> are talking about.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't   
   >>>>>>>>>> understand what I am talking about.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> YOU don't know what you are talking about,   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998.   
   >>>>>>>>>> One cannot discern one's own ignorance because   
   >>>>>>>>>> this requires the missing knowledge to see the difference.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> And you are just ignorance cubed.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Here is the same idea in much greater depth   
   >>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/   
   >>>>>>>>>> Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and admitted it.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> It sure would seem that way to everyone that did   
   >>>>>>>> not devote half their life to finding complete clarity.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> No, he was proven WRONG, and he admitted it.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> He may have admitted it but he was not actually   
   >>>>>> been proven wrong.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Sure he was.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Can you actually prove he was right?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Yes   
   >>>   
   >>> Then why haven't you?   
   >>>   
   >>> Your current arguements have all been based on bad definitions.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Not just based on an argument that starts by assuming him right.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> All of computation can be construed as applying finite   
   >>>>>>>> string transformation rules to finite string inputs.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Yes, but some results are not computable.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of   
   >>>>>>>> the scope of computation.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> You don't understand what you are talking about.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Yes, if it can't be described as a transformation it is out of   
   >>>>>>> scope.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> See that you proved that you do understand   
   >>>>>> what I am talking about.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> So, you don't know what a transformation is.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Halting *IS* a transformation of input to output, just not a   
   >>>>> computable transformation.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> All deciders essentially: Transform finite string   
   >>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   >>>> {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The ultimate measure the actual sequence of steps that   
   >>>> the actual finite string input specifies to HHH(DD)   
   >>>> is DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C.   
   >>>   
   >>> Nope. The problem is you HHH doesn't simulated its input according to   
   >>> the semantics of C, in part because the input you try to give doesn't   
   >>> have meaning by the semantics of C, since it deosn't define HHH.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> That DD is simulated by HHH according to the semantics   
   >> of C has been proven to be a sufficient definition of   
   >> HHH for 100 LLM conversations across four different LLMs.   
   >   
   > WHich just shows that those LLMs are wrong.   
   >   
      
   All deciders essentially: Transform finite string   
   inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   {Accept, Reject} values.   
      
   If you could manage to pay 100% complete attention   
   (this might actually be completely impossible)   
      
   You would see that no alternative better finite   
   string transformation rules for HHH can possibly exist.   
      
   > As if HHH DOES correctly simulate the DD+HHH by the rules of C, then it   
   > can never stop, as correct simulations never stop.   
   >   
   > Since your HHH does abort, it doesn't do the simulation you claim, and   
   > thus your premise is just a lie.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> This is the correct finite string transformations for   
   >>>> HHH to apply to its actual finite string input DD.   
   >>>   
   >>> No, it shows that you logic is just unsound, as are you.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> DD simulated by HHH  the ultimate measure of   
   >> the actual behavior that the actual input to HHH(DD)   
   >> actually specifies.   
   >   
   > Not when HHH doesn't do a correct simulation.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)