Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
| sci.logic | Logic -- math, philosophy & computationa | 262,912 messages |
[ << oldest | < older | list | newer > | newest >> ]
| Message 261,954 of 262,912 |
| olcott to All |
| Re: on just search the literature bruh ( |
| 15 Dec 25 14:42:07 |
XPost: comp.theory, sci.math From: polcott333@gmail.com On 12/15/2025 1:32 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 12/14/25 1:07 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >> On 14/12/2025 18:46, dart200 wrote: >>> On 12/13/25 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 12/13/25 8:17 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>> On 12/13/25 6:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 12/13/25 12:18 AM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/12/25 7:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/11/25 2:35 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 12/9/25 8:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 12/9/25 1:55 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/9/25 4:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/9/25 12:23 AM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/8/25 8:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given Machine H is chosen as one partial decider then the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^(d): if H(d, d) returns halting, loop forever >>>>>>>>>>>>>> else halt. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> i'm sorry now ur claiming H(d,d) actually returns an answer??? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> when did this happen, and what does it return buddy??? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> what ever its programs says it will. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you not understand the concept of a parameter to an >>>>>>>>>>>> arguement? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> My claim is if *YOU* give me a machine H, I can prove it wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> YOU need to provide some machine that my arguement will label >>>>>>>>>>>> as H. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then H^(H^) will show that H was wrong for H(H^, H^) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How is that not showing the machine which that machine can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not decider. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> partial decidable does not fly it loses to BB >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, because "partial deciability" means the machine is >>>>>>>>>>>> allowed to not answer. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> so what ur saying is H won't answer, so H^ will have an answer? >>>>>>>>>>> i did explore that paradigm in one of my papers, a believe it's >>>>>>>>>>> possible to create a program that seeks out an contradicts any >>>>>>>>>>> and all deciders that try to decide on it: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> H^ must have a behavior, so there is a correct answer. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> One semi-useful class of partial decider, which are also called >>>>>>>>>> recognizer, are machines that never give a wrong answer, but >>>>>>>>>> sometimes >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> yeah that's what i explored in the paper i posted >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But if your modifed criteria isn't itself useful, what good is it. >>>>>>>> THe >>>>>>> >>>>>>> idk what's with boomers and the notion that someone needs to have >>>>>>> literally everything worked out about a thing before posting an >>>>>>> idea??? >>>>>> >>>>>> Not that you need to have it all worked out, but that you evaluate >>>>>> as you go if there are signs of it being useful. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> if it doesn't interest you yet, then it's prolly not for you yet >>>>>> >>>>>> Yet, you ask for help. >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem is if you don't think of usefulness at the start, you >>>>>> will certainly end up with a system without usefulness. >>>>> >>>>> TV reality >>>> >>>> Nope, you are just showing your stupidity. >>> >>> TV reality, also this a form of origin fallacy >>> >>> look i get that debating with polcott makes u cranky, i don't really get >>> thru to him either. >>> >>> but i'm not polcott bro. he's exactly twice my age atm, right down to >>> the week. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> history is littered with entirely serendipitous innovation, and in >>>>> fact our progression depends on serendipity. which is why creativity >>>>> for the sake it, rather than with purpose, can be required >>>> >>>> Inovation needs to start with a knowledge of the basics, something you >>>> don't seem to have. >>> >>> bruh "knowing the basics" doesn't require scouring the entire existing >>> knowledge base for obscure, nuanced arguments that may or may not exist. >>> >>> anyways, the gpts never came back with any references to things that >>> really discuss what i'm talking about which is probably a way more >>> thorough search i can do manually, >> >> Your search needs to be in a reference library with a librarian that >> knows their stuff (used to be commonplace I'm told), or a real--sack of >> water--professor who can tell you which book. > > i'm tried of randomly emailing professors and getting fuck all back my > dude, that's why i'm here and not emailing professors > > also literally no one who go told me to search the literature has come > up with an example of what i might be looking for. please do feel free > to find me something that discusses what i'm talking about. > I totally understand what you mean by context aware. The behavior that the input to HHH(DD) specifies is different than the behavior that the input to HHH1(DD) specifies because DD only calls HHH(DD) in recursive simulation. >> >> Free search services--including chatbots--should not be expected to >> suffice for any job, because: why would they serve /your/ interests? > at some point they'll have to do, cause it's not physically possible to > read let alone know well enough to reference, all the literature that's > been written > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott |
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca