XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   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.   
      
   --   
   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)