XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/9/2025 6:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/8/25 11:30 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/8/2025 10:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/8/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/8/2025 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/8/25 10:16 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/8/2025 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/8/25 9:34 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 12/8/2025 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 12/8/25 8:00 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 12/8/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> What did I insufficeintly specify?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Troll   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> In other words, you admit defeat.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Not in the least little bit.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Then why didn't you answer the question?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> The key difference with you as a troll compared to   
   >>>>>>>> other trolls is that you do have a reasonably deep   
   >>>>>>>> understanding of some of these things.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> So, you admit that I know what I am talking about, and that you   
   >>>>>>> just refuse to answer the question.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> The only logical reason, is because you can't, because you lied   
   >>>>>>> about what you can do. After all, why would you hide the proof   
   >>>>>>> that you are smarter than me?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> The answer, because you know you are out matched and are running   
   >>>>>>> aways scared and trying to throw up a smoke screen.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> The following may not be over your head if you cared   
   >>>>>>>> to understand instead of being locked in rebuttal mode:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from   
   >>>>>>>> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject   
   >>>>>>>> state on the basis that this [finite string] input   
   >>>>>>>> specifies or fails to specify a *particular* semantic   
   >>>>>>>> or syntactic property.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Right, but are only CORRECT if the answr they give matches the   
   >>>>>>> answer to the problem they are SUPPOSED to decide on.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I will give you a much simpler example.   
   >>>>>> If a universal truth predicate is defined   
   >>>>>> to return true when and expression is true   
   >>>>>> and false when an expression is false then   
   >>>>>> what does it correctly return for this:   
   >>>>>> True("What time is it")   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You have a problem with you definition,   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> A Truth Predicate is defined to return True if the input statement   
   >>>>> is true, and false for anything else, either a false statement, or   
   >>>>> a statement without a truth value.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That makes perfect sense to me, what is a   
   >>>> halt decider defined this way?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> true if it is determined that it halts else false.   
   >>>   
   >>> No, not "DETERMINED", but *IF* it halts.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> True(X) if X is determined to be True,   
   >> false if false, gibberish or paradox.   
   >   
   > Only in your LIES.   
   >   
   > That has been one of your core problems, you never bothered to learn the   
   > ACTUAL meaning of the terms, but just guessed based on what you   
      
   I did make sure to never look at the conventional   
   received view of these things because it contains   
   all kinds of nonsense. For one thing there are about   
   nine different conventional received views.   
      
   Not even one person here ever looked at the correct   
   view that I reversed engineered. My work is a new   
   idea that is inconsistent with what they memorized   
   and they rejected it entirely on that basis making   
   no attempt to understand what I am saying.   
      
   Claude AI LLM acts like it has a PhD in everything   
   so it can connect together ideas from five different   
   fields.   
      
   So far no one here has achieved even as much as a baby   
   talk level of understanding of fully integrating   
   semantics directly in the syntax such the model theory   
   is not needed.   
      
   LLM systems immediately fully understand this and prove   
   that their understanding is correct by connecting all   
   of these ideas together on the basis of standard definitions.   
      
   --   
   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)