XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net   
      
   On 1/23/26 8:51 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 1/23/2026 7:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >> On 1/23/26 6:50 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>> On 1/23/2026 5:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>> On 1/23/26 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>> On 1/23/2026 10:29 AM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 1/23/26 2:19 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 1/22/2026 11:21 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 1/22/26 3:58 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> It is self-evident that a subset of Turing machines   
   >>>>>>>>> can be Turing complete entirely on the basis of the   
   >>>>>>>>> meaning of the words.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Every machine that performs the same set of   
   >>>>>>>>> finite string transformations on the same inputs   
   >>>>>>>>> and produces the same finite string outputs from   
   >>>>>>>>> these inputs is equivalent by definition and thus   
   >>>>>>>>> redundant in the set of Turing complete computations.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Can we change the subject now?   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> no because perhaps isolating out non-paradoxical machine may   
   >>>>>>>> prove a turing-complete subset of machines with no decision   
   >>>>>>>> paradoxes, removing a core pillar in the undecidability arguments.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> FYI, five LLMs have all agreed that I have conquered that.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> but no humans have and that's what actually counts   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> *It really does seem to me that I am a human*   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Also HHH(DD) Really does correctly detect the   
   >>>>> non-well-founded cyclic dependency in the   
   >>>>> evaluation graph.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Since DD isn't doing a proof or making a declariation of truth,   
   >>>> "non- well-founded" is a meaningless term in this context.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Only while you make sure to have no idea what   
   >>> this term means:   
   >>> "non-well-founded in proof theoretic semantics"   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Since proof theoretic semantics insists that only things that can be   
   >> proven can be asserted, it needs to be able to PROVE that the   
   >> statement is not provable or refutable for it to assert that the input   
   >> is non- well-founded.   
   >>   
   >> Or, are you admitting that you proof theoretics semantics are really   
   >> just truth-conditional semantics with a downgrading of Truth to being   
   >> probvabilility? (Which isn't what others consider it to be).   
   >   
   > I didn't think this stuff up on my own. I had at   
   > least 100 dialogues with five different LLM systems   
   > and after much push-back they all agreed that I am   
   > correct after 60 pages of dialogue each. I have   
   > been working on this every waking moment for weeks.   
      
   In other words you are working with the counsel of admitted liars, whose   
   terms of use include that you acknoldege their results may not be accurate.   
      
   >   
   > It was Copilot that recognized that my system was   
   > Proof Theoretic Semantics (PTS) that resolves to   
   > provable / refutable / non-well-founded.   
   >   
   > Every system also agrees that HHH(DD) does   
   > correctly reject DD as non-well-founded.   
   > I just can't get them to do that concisely yet.   
   >   
   > Once I can get them to actually do the simulation   
   > then they immediately see from their own simulation   
   > trace that HHH correctly rejects DD as non-well-founded   
   > within proof theoretic semantics.   
   >   
   > non-well-founded literally means that the proof   
   > itself is stuck in a loop.   
   >   
      
   Nope, non-well-founded means that there is no proof.   
      
   "Proofs" don't get stuck in a loop, as it isn't a proof until it is   
   complete.   
      
   THe fact that ONE attempted method of proving doesn't result in getting   
   to the answer doesn't mean that some other method doesn't work   
      
   All you are doing is showing that you are just ignorant of what you are   
   talking about, and you admit that you are trusting programs known to lie   
   and give false results, and are even admittedly programmed to try to   
   give good sounding results over factually accurate results.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)