XPost: sci.logic, sci.lang, alt.philosophy   
   XPost: comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/3/2026 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/3/26 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Yes, that is what they CAN do.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > For a particular HHH, there is only one possible transform, the one that   
   > it is programmed.   
   >   
      
   For every HHH/DD pair that can possibly exist   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)