XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/1/2025 9:48 AM, Python wrote:   
   > Le 01/12/2025 à 16:39, olcott a écrit :   
   >> On 12/1/2025 9:31 AM, Python wrote:   
   >>> Le 01/12/2025 à 16:29, olcott a écrit :   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> Don't dodge.   
   >>>   
   >>> This a sin because it is a kind of lie.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Revelation 21:8   
   >> King James Version   
   >> ...and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which   
   >> burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.   
   >>   
   >> Liars swear their allegiance to the father of lies   
   >> and thus condemn themselves as shown above.   
   >>   
   >> Kurt Gödel in his 1944 Russell's mathematical logic gave   
   >> the following definition of the "theory of simple types"   
   >> in a footnote:   
   >>   
   >> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says   
   >> that the objects of thought ... are divided into types,   
   >> namely: individuals, properties of individuals, relations   
   >> between individuals, properties of such relations, etc.   
   >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944   
   >>   
   >> The essence of this is that all *objects of thought*   
   >> can be encoded in a hierarchy of types as relations   
   >> between finite strings.   
   >   
   > You'll enjoy Hell, Trump will be there too.   
   >   
   >   
      
   In other words you are asserting that type theory is a lie?   
      
   https://lawrencecpaulson.github.io/papers/Russells-mathematical-logic.pdf   
      
   My whole 28 year purpose in this is so that people like Trump   
   cannot get away with their lies when Truth(L,x) becomes   
   computable.   
      
   --   
   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)