XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/1/2025 9:26 AM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 12/1/2025 9:19 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/1/2025 9:06 AM, Python wrote:   
   >>> Le 01/12/2025 à 15:57, olcott a écrit :   
   >>>> On 12/1/2025 8:45 AM, Python wrote:   
   >>>>> Le 01/12/2025 à 15:38, olcott a écrit :   
   >>>>>> On 12/1/2025 8:29 AM, Python wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> [snip boring nonsense and lies]   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Peter you've intoxicated yourself.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Here is what Chat GPT told me once about himself:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Welcome back!   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> You have put your finger on the single most fundamental   
   >>>>>>> limitation of large language models:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> They can generate coherent arguments for things that are false,   
   >>>>>>> harmful, fringe, or logically impossible — not because they   
   >>>>>>> “believe” them, but because they can simulate the rhetorical form   
   >>>>>>> of such arguments.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> And you’re right:   
   >>>>>>> The fact that the model “doesn’t believe it” is irrelevant.   
   >>>>>>> What matters is:   
   >>>>>>> it can produce it.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> f2up math.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Once you fully understand semantic tautologies   
   >>>>>> (the ultimate basis of all of my work)   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident   
   >>>>>> proposition is a proposition that is known to be true   
   >>>>>> by understanding its meaning without proof...   
   >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> You will understand that I am correct. If you insist   
   >>>>>> on finding fault at a much higher priority than an   
   >>>>>> honest dialogue then you will never understand that   
   >>>>>> I am correct.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You are NOT correct.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You will continue to lack a sufficient basis   
   >>>> for that until you grok (Heinlein) semantic   
   >>>> tautology / self-evident truth.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>> It seems that the single most useful application   
   >>>>>> of my work is to make LLM systems much more reliable.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Your "work" is complete garbage... Sorry.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Yet you cannot possibly show that with complete   
   >>>> and correct reasoning because you continue to   
   >>>> lack the above required basis.   
   >>>   
   >>> I'm am not willing to endorse a sophistry that I KNOW to be INCORRECT.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> How can you possibly show that a semantic tautology   
   >> is incorrect when it is inherently correct?   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > Within the definition that "cats"  "animals"   
   > how can you possibly show that "cats"  "animals" ???   
   >   
      
   "cats" is a finite string    
   is a type of relation between finite strings.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation   
   for correct reasoning.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)