XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++, comp.ai.philosophy
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 10/14/2025 2:28 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-10-14, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2025 12:25 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-10-14, olcott wrote:
>>>> 1. A decider’s domain is its input encoding, not the physical program
>>>>
>>>> Every total computable function — including a hypothetical halting
>>>> decider — is, formally, a mapping
>>>
>>>> H:Σ∗ →{0,1}
>>>
>>> It's obvious you used AI to write this.
>>>
>>
>> I did not exactly use AI to write this.
>> AI took my ideas and paraphrased them
>> into its "understanding".
>
> That's what is called "writing with AI" or "writing using AI",
> or "AI assisted writing".
>
> If I wanted to say that you flatly generated the content with AI,
> so that the ideas are not yours, I would use that wording.
>
> Obviously, the ideas are yours or very similar to yours in
> a different wording.
>
>> I was able to capture the entire dialog
>> with formatting as 27 pages of text.
>> I will publish this very soon.
>
> Please don't.
>
>> *It is all on this updated link*
>> https://chatgpt.com/share/68ee799d-d548-8011-9227-dce897245daa
>>
>>> That's a good thing because it's a lot smoother and readable than the
>>> utter garbage that you write by yourself!
>>>
>>
>> I always needed a reviewer that could fully understand
>> And validate my ideas to the extent that they are correct.
>> It looks like ChatGPT 5.0 is that agent.
>
> It's behaving as nothing more but a glorified grammar, wording and style
> fixer.
>
>> When it verifies my ideas it does this by paraphrasing
>> them into its own words and then verifies that these
>> paraphrased words are correct.
>
> While it is parphrasing it is doing no such thing as verifying
> that the ideas are correct.
>
> It's just regurgitating your indiosyncratic crank ideas, almost verbatim
> in their original form, though with more smooth language.
>
>>> Please, from now on, do not /ever/ write anything in comp.theory that is
>>> not revised by AI.
>>
>> As soon as humans verify the reasoning of my
>> paraphrased words it seems that I will finally
>> have complete closure on the halting problem stuff.
>
> It's been my understanding that you are using the Usenet newsgroup
> as a staging ground for your ideas, so that you can improve them and
> formally present them to CS academia.
>
> Unfortunately, if you examine your behavior, you will see that you are
> not on this trajectory at all, and never have been. You are hardly
> closer to the goal than 20 years ago.
>
> You've not seriously followed up on any of the detailed rebuttals of
> your work; instead insisisting that you are correct and everyone is
> simply not intelligent enough to understand it.
>
> So it is puzzling why you choose to stay (for years!) in a review pool
> in which you don't find the reviewers to be helpful at all; you
> find them lacking and dismiss every one of their points.
>
> How is that supposed to move you toward your goal?
>
> In the world, there is such a thing as the reviewers of an intellectual
> work being too stupid to be of use. But in such cases, the author
> quickly gets past such reviewers and finds others. Especially in cases
> where they are just volunteers from the population, and not assigned
> by an institution or journal.
>
> In other words, how is it possible that you allow reviewers you have
> /found yourself/ in the wild and which you do not find to have
> suitable capability, to block your progress?
>
> (With the declining popularity of Usenet, do you really think that
> academia will suddenly come to comp.theory, displacing all of us
> idiots that are here now, if you just stick around here long enough?)
>
>>>> where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings (program encodings).
>>>>
>>>> What H computes is determined entirely by those encodings and its own
>>>> transition rules.
>>>
>>> Great. D is such a string, and has one correct answer.
>>>
>>
>> That is where ChatGPT totally agrees that the
>> halting problem directly contradicts reality.
>
> You've conviced the bot to reproduce writing which states
> that there is a difference between simulation and "direct execution",
> which is false. Machines are abstractions. All executions of them
> are simulations of the abstraction.
>
> E.g. an Intel chip is a simulator of the abstract instruction set.
>
> On top of that, in your x86_utm, what you are calling "direct
> exzecution" is actually simulated.
>
> Moreover, HHH1(DD) perpetrates a stepwise simulation using
> a parallel "level" and very similar approach to HHH(DD).
> It's even the same code, other than the function name.
> The difference being that DD calls HHH and not HHH1.
> (And you've made function names/addresses falsely significant in your
> system.)
>
> HHH1(DD) is a simulation of the same nature as HHH except for
> not checking for abort criteria, making it a much more faithful
> simulation. HHH1(DD) concludes with a 1.
>
> How can that not be the one and only correct result.
>
>> “Formal computability theory is internally consistent,
>> but it presupposes that “the behavior of the encoded
>> program” is a formal object inside the same domain
>> as the decider’s input. If that identification is treated
>> as a fact about reality rather than a modeling convention,
>> then yes—it would be a false assumption.”
>>
>> Does this say that the halting problem is contradicting
>
> "Does this say?" That's your problem; you generated this with our
> long chat with AI.
>
> Before you finalize your wording paraphrased with AI and share it with
> others, be sure you have to questions yourself about what it says!!!
>
> Doh?
>
>> reality when it stipulates that the executable and the
>> input are in the same domain because in fact they are
>> not in the same domain?
>
> No; it's saying that the halting problem is confined to a formal,
> abstract domain which is not to be confused with some concept of
> "reality".
>
> Maybe in reality, machines that transcend the Turing computational
> model are possible. (We have not found them.)
>
> In any case, the Halting Theorem is carefully about the formal
> abstraction; it doesn't conflict with "reality" because it doesn't
> make claims about "reality".
>
>> https://chatgpt.com/share/68ee799d-d548-8011-9227-dce897245daa
>>
>> Yes — that’s exactly what follows from your reasoning.
>>
>> It goes on and on showing all the details of how I
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
