Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #640346 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-10-20 22:00 -0500 |
| Last post | 2025-10-22 13:36 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 66 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 22:00 -0500
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 23:05 -0400
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 22:13 -0500
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 23:16 -0400
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 22:25 -0500
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 23:29 -0400
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-21 03:20 +0000
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 22:29 -0500
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 06:56 -0500
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 08:25 -0400
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 07:48 -0500
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 09:00 -0400
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 08:47 -0500
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 09:50 -0400
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 09:25 -0500
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 14:27 +0000
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 13:30 -0400
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-22 15:40 +0000
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 10:47 -0500
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-22 17:07 +0000
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 12:11 -0500
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 13:38 -0400
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-22 18:40 +0000
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-10-22 13:24 -0600
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 14:30 -0500
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 15:31 -0400
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-10-22 20:34 +0100
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-22 19:52 +0000
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 15:00 -0500
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-22 20:20 +0000
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 15:35 -0500
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 16:43 -0400
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 --- NST olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 16:12 -0500
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 --- NST "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 14:32 -0700
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 --- NST dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 17:50 -0400
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 --- NST Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-22 23:01 +0000
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 --- NST olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-23 09:55 -0500
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 --- NST Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-23 16:47 +0000
"there will still be a nested simulation tower" Kaz olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-23 12:22 -0500
Re: "there will still be a nested simulation tower" Kaz "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-23 11:50 -0700
Re: "there will still be a nested simulation tower" Kaz Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-23 21:11 +0000
"there will still be a nested simulation tower" Kaz olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-23 17:08 -0500
Re: "there will still be a nested simulation tower" Kaz "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-23 15:21 -0700
Re: "there will still be a nested simulation tower" Kaz "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-23 15:26 -0700
Re: "there will still be a nested simulation tower" Kaz dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-23 18:40 -0400
Re: "there will still be a nested simulation tower" Kaz olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-23 17:48 -0500
Re: "there will still be a nested simulation tower" Kaz dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-23 19:09 -0400
Re: "there will still be a nested simulation tower" Kaz Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-23 23:55 +0000
Re: "there will still be a nested simulation tower" Kaz olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-23 19:00 -0500
Re: "there will still be a nested simulation tower" Kaz Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-23 23:45 +0000
Re: "there will still be a nested simulation tower" Kaz olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-23 18:51 -0500
Re: "there will still be a nested simulation tower" Kaz dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-23 20:14 -0400
"there will still be a nested simulation tower" Kaz olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 17:14 -0500
Re: "there will still be a nested simulation tower" Kaz dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 18:33 -0400
Re: "there will still be a nested simulation tower" Kaz Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-22 23:15 +0000
Re: "there will still be a nested simulation tower" Kaz olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 18:24 -0500
Re: "there will still be a nested simulation tower" Kaz dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 20:14 -0400
Re: "there will still be a nested simulation tower" Kaz Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-23 01:22 +0000
Re: "there will still be a nested simulation tower" Kaz olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 20:47 -0500
Re: "there will still be a nested simulation tower" Kaz dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 22:13 -0400
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-10-23 08:02 +0200
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-23 09:51 -0500
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 14:55 -0500
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 16:24 -0400
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-22 21:55 +0000
Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 13:36 -0400
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-20 22:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)==0 Since 10/13/2022 |
| Message-ID | <10d6t02$3l5sd$1@dont-email.me> |
On 10/20/2025 9:11 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/20/2025 8:27 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/20/2025 4:03 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 1:29 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/19/2025 2:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-19, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> i don't get y polcott keep hanging onto ai for dear life. anyone with
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Throngs of dumb boomers are falling for AI generated videos, believing
>>>>>>>>> them to be real. This is much the same thing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> AI is just another thing Olcott has no understanding of. He's not
>>>>>>>>> researched the fundamentals of what it means to train a language
>>>>>>>>> network, and how it is ultimately just token prediction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It excels at generating good syntax. The reason for that is that the
>>>>>>>>> vast amount of training data exhibits good syntax. (Where it has bad
>>>>>>>>> syntax, it is idiosyncratic; whereas good syntax is broadly shared.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I provide a basis to it and it does perform valid
>>>>>>>> semantic logical entailment on this basis and shows
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But you're incapable of recognizing valid entailment from invalid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any freaking idiot can spew out baseless rhetoric
>>>>>> such as this. I could do the same sort of thing
>>>>>> and say you are wrong and stupidly wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you don't?
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a whole other ballgame when one attempts
>>>>>> to point out actual errors that are not anchored
>>>>>> in one's own lack of comprehension.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't comprehend the pointing-out.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You need to have a sound reasoning basis to prove
>>>> that an error is an actual error.
>>>
>>> No; /YOU/ need to have sound reasonings to prove /YOUR/
>>> extraordinary claims. The burden is on you.
>>>
>>> We already have the solid reasoning which says things are other than as
>>> you say, and you don't have the faintest idea how to put a dent in it.
>>>
>>
>> In other words you assume that I must be wrong
>> entirely on the basis that what I say does not
>> conform to conventional wisdom.
>
> Yes; you are wrong entirely on the basis that what you say does not
> follow a valid mode of inference for refuting an argument.
>
> If you are trying to refute something which is not only a widely
> accepted result, but whose reasoning anyone can follow to see it
> for themselves, you are automatically assumed wrong.
>
> The established result is presumed correct, pending your
> presentation of a convincing argument.
>
> That's not just wanton arbitrariness: your claims are being
> directly refuted by elements of the established result which
> we can refer to.
>
> I cannot identify any flaw in the halting theorem. It's not simply
> that I believe it because of the Big Names attached to it.
>
And when I identify a flaw yo simply ignore
whatever I say.
> I'm convinced by the argumentation; and that conviction has
> the side effect of convincing me of the falsehood of your
> ineffective, contrary argumentation.
>
Not really it actually gives you the bias to refuse
to pay attention.
>> That is not any actual rebuttal of the specific points that I make.
>
> No, indeed /that/ isn't; but plenty of those have also been made not
> only by me but various others, over a considerable time span.
>
Never any actual rebuttal ever since Professor
Sipser agreed with my words. Those exact same
words still form the basis of my whole proof.
*Here is an accurate paraphrase of those words*
<Input to LLM systems>
Perform the complete simulation specified in main() and provide a
full execution trace before doing anything else.
Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
(a) It correctly detects that its simulated input cannot
possibly reach its own simulated final halt state then:
abort simulation and return 0 rejecting its input as non-halting.
(b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement: return 1.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-20 23:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <10d6t95$3l0kk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640346 |
On 10/20/2025 11:00 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/20/2025 9:11 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 10/20/2025 8:27 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 10/20/2025 4:03 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 1:29 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/19/2025 2:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-19, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> i don't get y polcott keep hanging onto ai for dear life. >>>>>>>>>>> anyone with >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Throngs of dumb boomers are falling for AI generated videos, >>>>>>>>>> believing >>>>>>>>>> them to be real. This is much the same thing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> AI is just another thing Olcott has no understanding of. He's not >>>>>>>>>> researched the fundamentals of what it means to train a language >>>>>>>>>> network, and how it is ultimately just token prediction. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It excels at generating good syntax. The reason for that is >>>>>>>>>> that the >>>>>>>>>> vast amount of training data exhibits good syntax. (Where it >>>>>>>>>> has bad >>>>>>>>>> syntax, it is idiosyncratic; whereas good syntax is broadly >>>>>>>>>> shared.) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I provide a basis to it and it does perform valid >>>>>>>>> semantic logical entailment on this basis and shows >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But you're incapable of recognizing valid entailment from invalid. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any freaking idiot can spew out baseless rhetoric >>>>>>> such as this. I could do the same sort of thing >>>>>>> and say you are wrong and stupidly wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> But you don't? >>>>>> >>>>>>> It is a whole other ballgame when one attempts >>>>>>> to point out actual errors that are not anchored >>>>>>> in one's own lack of comprehension. >>>>>> >>>>>> You don't comprehend the pointing-out. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You need to have a sound reasoning basis to prove >>>>> that an error is an actual error. >>>> >>>> No; /YOU/ need to have sound reasonings to prove /YOUR/ >>>> extraordinary claims. The burden is on you. >>>> >>>> We already have the solid reasoning which says things are other than as >>>> you say, and you don't have the faintest idea how to put a dent in it. >>>> >>> >>> In other words you assume that I must be wrong >>> entirely on the basis that what I say does not >>> conform to conventional wisdom. >> >> Yes; you are wrong entirely on the basis that what you say does not >> follow a valid mode of inference for refuting an argument. >> >> If you are trying to refute something which is not only a widely >> accepted result, but whose reasoning anyone can follow to see it >> for themselves, you are automatically assumed wrong. >> >> The established result is presumed correct, pending your >> presentation of a convincing argument. >> >> That's not just wanton arbitrariness: your claims are being >> directly refuted by elements of the established result which >> we can refer to. >> >> I cannot identify any flaw in the halting theorem. It's not simply >> that I believe it because of the Big Names attached to it. >> > > And when I identify a flaw yo simply ignore > whatever I say. > >> I'm convinced by the argumentation; and that conviction has >> the side effect of convincing me of the falsehood of your >> ineffective, contrary argumentation. >> > > Not really it actually gives you the bias to refuse > to pay attention. > >>> That is not any actual rebuttal of the specific points that I make. >> >> No, indeed /that/ isn't; but plenty of those have also been made not >> only by me but various others, over a considerable time span. >> > > Never any actual rebuttal ever since Professor > Sipser agreed with my words. Those exact same > words still form the basis of my whole proof. You mean the words where he didn't agree with your interpretation of them? On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Fritz Feldhase <franz.fri...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:56:52 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote: > >> On 3/5/2023 8:33 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote: > >> > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:30:38 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote: > >> > > > >> > > I needed Sipser for people [bla] > >> > > > >> > Does Sipser support your view/claim that you have refuted the halting theorem? > >> > > >> > Does he write/teach that the halting theorem is invalid? > >> > > >> > Tell us, oh genius! > >> > > >> Professor Sipser only agreed that [...] > > > > So the answer is no. Noted. > > > >> Because he has >250 students he did not have time to examine anything > >> else. [...] > > > > Oh, a CS professor does not have the time to check a refutation of the > > halting theorem. *lol* > I exchanged emails with him about this. He does not agree with anything > substantive that PO has written. I won't quote him, as I don't have > permission, but he was, let's say... forthright, in his reply to me. > On 8/23/2024 5:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > joes <noreply@example.org> writes: > >> Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:55:52 -0500 schrieb olcott: > >>> Professor Sipser clearly agreed that an H that does a finite simulation >>> of D is to predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation of D. >> >> If the simulator *itself* would not abort. The H called by D is, >> by construction, the same and *does* abort. > > We don't really know what context Sipser was given. I got in touch at > the time so do I know he had enough context to know that PO's ideas were > "wacky" and that had agreed to what he considered a "minor remark". > > Since PO considers his words finely crafted and key to his so-called > work I think it's clear that Sipser did not take the "minor remark" he > agreed to to mean what PO takes it to mean! My own take if that he > (Sipser) read it as a general remark about how to determine some cases, > i.e. that D names an input that H can partially simulate to determine > it's halting or otherwise. We all know or could construct some such > cases. > > I suspect he was tricked because PO used H and D as the names without > making it clear that D was constructed from H in the usual way (Sipser > uses H and D in at least one of his proofs). Of course, he is clued in > enough know that, if D is indeed constructed from H like that, the > "minor remark" becomes true by being a hypothetical: if the moon is made > of cheese, the Martians can look forward to a fine fondue. But, > personally, I think the professor is more straight talking than that, > and he simply took as a method that can work for some inputs. That's > the only way is could be seen as a "minor remark" with being accused of > being disingenuous. On 8/23/2024 9:10 PM, Mike Terry wrote: > So that PO will have no cause to quote me as supporting his case: what > Sipser understood he was agreeing to was NOT what PO interprets it as > meaning. Sipser would not agree that the conclusion applies in PO's > HHH(DDD) scenario, where DDD halts. On 5/2/2025 9:16 PM, Mike Terry wrote: > PO is trying to interpret Sipser's quote: > > --- Start Sipser quote > If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D > until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never > stop running unless aborted then > > H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D > specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. > --- End Sipser quote > > The following interpretation is ok: > > If H is given input D, and while simulating D gathers enough > information to deduce that UTM(D) would never halt, then > H can abort its simulation and decide D never halts. > > I'd say it's obvious that this is what Sipser is saying, because it's > natural, correct, and relevant to what was being discussed (valid > strategy for a simulating halt decider). It is trivial to check that > what my interpretation says is valid: > > if UTM(D) would never halt, then D never halts, so if H(D) returns > never_halts then that is the correct answer for the input. QED :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-20 22:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10d6tom$3l9vh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640347 |
On 10/20/2025 10:05 PM, dbush wrote: > On 10/20/2025 11:00 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/20/2025 9:11 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 10/20/2025 8:27 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 10/20/2025 4:03 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 1:29 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/19/2025 2:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-19, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> i don't get y polcott keep hanging onto ai for dear life. >>>>>>>>>>>> anyone with >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Throngs of dumb boomers are falling for AI generated videos, >>>>>>>>>>> believing >>>>>>>>>>> them to be real. This is much the same thing. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> AI is just another thing Olcott has no understanding of. He's >>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>> researched the fundamentals of what it means to train a language >>>>>>>>>>> network, and how it is ultimately just token prediction. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It excels at generating good syntax. The reason for that is >>>>>>>>>>> that the >>>>>>>>>>> vast amount of training data exhibits good syntax. (Where it >>>>>>>>>>> has bad >>>>>>>>>>> syntax, it is idiosyncratic; whereas good syntax is broadly >>>>>>>>>>> shared.) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I provide a basis to it and it does perform valid >>>>>>>>>> semantic logical entailment on this basis and shows >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But you're incapable of recognizing valid entailment from invalid. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Any freaking idiot can spew out baseless rhetoric >>>>>>>> such as this. I could do the same sort of thing >>>>>>>> and say you are wrong and stupidly wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But you don't? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is a whole other ballgame when one attempts >>>>>>>> to point out actual errors that are not anchored >>>>>>>> in one's own lack of comprehension. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You don't comprehend the pointing-out. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You need to have a sound reasoning basis to prove >>>>>> that an error is an actual error. >>>>> >>>>> No; /YOU/ need to have sound reasonings to prove /YOUR/ >>>>> extraordinary claims. The burden is on you. >>>>> >>>>> We already have the solid reasoning which says things are other >>>>> than as >>>>> you say, and you don't have the faintest idea how to put a dent in it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> In other words you assume that I must be wrong >>>> entirely on the basis that what I say does not >>>> conform to conventional wisdom. >>> >>> Yes; you are wrong entirely on the basis that what you say does not >>> follow a valid mode of inference for refuting an argument. >>> >>> If you are trying to refute something which is not only a widely >>> accepted result, but whose reasoning anyone can follow to see it >>> for themselves, you are automatically assumed wrong. >>> >>> The established result is presumed correct, pending your >>> presentation of a convincing argument. >>> >>> That's not just wanton arbitrariness: your claims are being >>> directly refuted by elements of the established result which >>> we can refer to. >>> >>> I cannot identify any flaw in the halting theorem. It's not simply >>> that I believe it because of the Big Names attached to it. >>> >> >> And when I identify a flaw yo simply ignore >> whatever I say. >> >>> I'm convinced by the argumentation; and that conviction has >>> the side effect of convincing me of the falsehood of your >>> ineffective, contrary argumentation. >>> >> >> Not really it actually gives you the bias to refuse >> to pay attention. >> >>>> That is not any actual rebuttal of the specific points that I make. >>> >>> No, indeed /that/ isn't; but plenty of those have also been made not >>> only by me but various others, over a considerable time span. >>> >> >> Never any actual rebuttal ever since Professor >> Sipser agreed with my words. Those exact same >> words still form the basis of my whole proof. > > You mean the words where he didn't agree with your interpretation of them? > > According to a Claude AI analysis there are only two interpretations and one of them is wrong and the other one is my interpretation. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-20 23:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <10d6ttt$3l0ko$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640348 |
On 10/20/2025 11:13 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/20/2025 10:05 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 10/20/2025 11:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/20/2025 9:11 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 10/20/2025 8:27 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 4:03 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 1:29 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/19/2025 2:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-19, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> i don't get y polcott keep hanging onto ai for dear life. >>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone with >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Throngs of dumb boomers are falling for AI generated videos, >>>>>>>>>>>> believing >>>>>>>>>>>> them to be real. This is much the same thing. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> AI is just another thing Olcott has no understanding of. >>>>>>>>>>>> He's not >>>>>>>>>>>> researched the fundamentals of what it means to train a >>>>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>>>> network, and how it is ultimately just token prediction. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It excels at generating good syntax. The reason for that is >>>>>>>>>>>> that the >>>>>>>>>>>> vast amount of training data exhibits good syntax. (Where it >>>>>>>>>>>> has bad >>>>>>>>>>>> syntax, it is idiosyncratic; whereas good syntax is broadly >>>>>>>>>>>> shared.) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I provide a basis to it and it does perform valid >>>>>>>>>>> semantic logical entailment on this basis and shows >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But you're incapable of recognizing valid entailment from >>>>>>>>>> invalid. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Any freaking idiot can spew out baseless rhetoric >>>>>>>>> such as this. I could do the same sort of thing >>>>>>>>> and say you are wrong and stupidly wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But you don't? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is a whole other ballgame when one attempts >>>>>>>>> to point out actual errors that are not anchored >>>>>>>>> in one's own lack of comprehension. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You don't comprehend the pointing-out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You need to have a sound reasoning basis to prove >>>>>>> that an error is an actual error. >>>>>> >>>>>> No; /YOU/ need to have sound reasonings to prove /YOUR/ >>>>>> extraordinary claims. The burden is on you. >>>>>> >>>>>> We already have the solid reasoning which says things are other >>>>>> than as >>>>>> you say, and you don't have the faintest idea how to put a dent in >>>>>> it. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In other words you assume that I must be wrong >>>>> entirely on the basis that what I say does not >>>>> conform to conventional wisdom. >>>> >>>> Yes; you are wrong entirely on the basis that what you say does not >>>> follow a valid mode of inference for refuting an argument. >>>> >>>> If you are trying to refute something which is not only a widely >>>> accepted result, but whose reasoning anyone can follow to see it >>>> for themselves, you are automatically assumed wrong. >>>> >>>> The established result is presumed correct, pending your >>>> presentation of a convincing argument. >>>> >>>> That's not just wanton arbitrariness: your claims are being >>>> directly refuted by elements of the established result which >>>> we can refer to. >>>> >>>> I cannot identify any flaw in the halting theorem. It's not simply >>>> that I believe it because of the Big Names attached to it. >>>> >>> >>> And when I identify a flaw yo simply ignore >>> whatever I say. >>> >>>> I'm convinced by the argumentation; and that conviction has >>>> the side effect of convincing me of the falsehood of your >>>> ineffective, contrary argumentation. >>>> >>> >>> Not really it actually gives you the bias to refuse >>> to pay attention. >>> >>>>> That is not any actual rebuttal of the specific points that I make. >>>> >>>> No, indeed /that/ isn't; but plenty of those have also been made not >>>> only by me but various others, over a considerable time span. >>>> >>> >>> Never any actual rebuttal ever since Professor >>> Sipser agreed with my words. Those exact same >>> words still form the basis of my whole proof. >> >> You mean the words where he didn't agree with your interpretation of >> them? >> >> > > According to a Claude AI analysis there > are only two interpretations and one of > them is wrong and the other one is my > interpretation. > Whether you think one interpretation is wrong is irrelevant. What is relevant is that that's how everyone else including Sipser interpreted those words, so you lie by implying that he agrees with your interpretation. On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Fritz Feldhase <franz.fri...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:56:52 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote: > >> On 3/5/2023 8:33 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote: > >> > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:30:38 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote: > >> > > > >> > > I needed Sipser for people [bla] > >> > > > >> > Does Sipser support your view/claim that you have refuted the halting theorem? > >> > > >> > Does he write/teach that the halting theorem is invalid? > >> > > >> > Tell us, oh genius! > >> > > >> Professor Sipser only agreed that [...] > > > > So the answer is no. Noted. > > > >> Because he has >250 students he did not have time to examine anything > >> else. [...] > > > > Oh, a CS professor does not have the time to check a refutation of the > > halting theorem. *lol* > I exchanged emails with him about this. He does not agree with anything > substantive that PO has written. I won't quote him, as I don't have > permission, but he was, let's say... forthright, in his reply to me. > On 8/23/2024 5:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > joes <noreply@example.org> writes: > >> Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:55:52 -0500 schrieb olcott: > >>> Professor Sipser clearly agreed that an H that does a finite simulation >>> of D is to predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation of D. >> >> If the simulator *itself* would not abort. The H called by D is, >> by construction, the same and *does* abort. > > We don't really know what context Sipser was given. I got in touch at > the time so do I know he had enough context to know that PO's ideas were > "wacky" and that had agreed to what he considered a "minor remark". > > Since PO considers his words finely crafted and key to his so-called > work I think it's clear that Sipser did not take the "minor remark" he > agreed to to mean what PO takes it to mean! My own take if that he > (Sipser) read it as a general remark about how to determine some cases, > i.e. that D names an input that H can partially simulate to determine > it's halting or otherwise. We all know or could construct some such > cases. > > I suspect he was tricked because PO used H and D as the names without > making it clear that D was constructed from H in the usual way (Sipser > uses H and D in at least one of his proofs). Of course, he is clued in > enough know that, if D is indeed constructed from H like that, the > "minor remark" becomes true by being a hypothetical: if the moon is made > of cheese, the Martians can look forward to a fine fondue. But, > personally, I think the professor is more straight talking than that, > and he simply took as a method that can work for some inputs. That's > the only way is could be seen as a "minor remark" with being accused of > being disingenuous. On 8/23/2024 9:10 PM, Mike Terry wrote: > So that PO will have no cause to quote me as supporting his case: what > Sipser understood he was agreeing to was NOT what PO interprets it as > meaning. Sipser would not agree that the conclusion applies in PO's > HHH(DDD) scenario, where DDD halts. On 5/2/2025 9:16 PM, Mike Terry wrote: > PO is trying to interpret Sipser's quote: > > --- Start Sipser quote > If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D > until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never > stop running unless aborted then > > H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D > specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. > --- End Sipser quote > > The following interpretation is ok: > > If H is given input D, and while simulating D gathers enough > information to deduce that UTM(D) would never halt, then > H can abort its simulation and decide D never halts. > > I'd say it's obvious that this is what Sipser is saying, because it's > natural, correct, and relevant to what was being discussed (valid > strategy for a simulating halt decider). It is trivial to check that > what my interpretation says is valid: > > if UTM(D) would never halt, then D never halts, so if H(D) returns > never_halts then that is the correct answer for the input. QED :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-20 22:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10d6ug3$3leef$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640349 |
On 10/20/2025 10:16 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 10/20/2025 11:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/20/2025 10:05 PM, dbush wrote:>>>
>>> You mean the words where he didn't agree with your interpretation of
>>> them?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> According to a Claude AI analysis there
>> are only two interpretations and one of
>> them is wrong and the other one is my
>> interpretation.
>>
>
>
> Whether you think one interpretation is wrong is irrelevant. What is
> relevant is that that's how everyone else including Sipser interpreted
> those words, so you lie by implying that he agrees with your
> interpretation.
>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
would never stop running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
There are only two possible ways to interpret those words
and one of them is wrong. The one that is not wrong is the
way that I interpret them.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-20 23:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <10d6unf$3l0ko$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640351 |
On 10/20/2025 11:25 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/20/2025 10:16 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 10/20/2025 11:13 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/20/2025 10:05 PM, dbush wrote:>>> >>>> You mean the words where he didn't agree with your interpretation of >>>> them? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> According to a Claude AI analysis there >>> are only two interpretations and one of >>> them is wrong and the other one is my >>> interpretation. >>> >> >> >> Whether you think one interpretation is wrong is irrelevant. What is >> relevant is that that's how everyone else including Sipser interpreted >> those words, so you lie by implying that he agrees with your >> interpretation. >> > > <repeat of previously refuted point> > Repeating the point that was just refuted is less than no rebuttal, and therefore constitutes your admission that Sipser does NOT agree with you, and that you have been lying by implying that he does. On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Fritz Feldhase <franz.fri...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:56:52 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote: > >> On 3/5/2023 8:33 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote: > >> > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:30:38 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote: > >> > > > >> > > I needed Sipser for people [bla] > >> > > > >> > Does Sipser support your view/claim that you have refuted the halting theorem? > >> > > >> > Does he write/teach that the halting theorem is invalid? > >> > > >> > Tell us, oh genius! > >> > > >> Professor Sipser only agreed that [...] > > > > So the answer is no. Noted. > > > >> Because he has >250 students he did not have time to examine anything > >> else. [...] > > > > Oh, a CS professor does not have the time to check a refutation of the > > halting theorem. *lol* > I exchanged emails with him about this. He does not agree with anything > substantive that PO has written. I won't quote him, as I don't have > permission, but he was, let's say... forthright, in his reply to me. > On 8/23/2024 5:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > joes <noreply@example.org> writes: > >> Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:55:52 -0500 schrieb olcott: > >>> Professor Sipser clearly agreed that an H that does a finite simulation >>> of D is to predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation of D. >> >> If the simulator *itself* would not abort. The H called by D is, >> by construction, the same and *does* abort. > > We don't really know what context Sipser was given. I got in touch at > the time so do I know he had enough context to know that PO's ideas were > "wacky" and that had agreed to what he considered a "minor remark". > > Since PO considers his words finely crafted and key to his so-called > work I think it's clear that Sipser did not take the "minor remark" he > agreed to to mean what PO takes it to mean! My own take if that he > (Sipser) read it as a general remark about how to determine some cases, > i.e. that D names an input that H can partially simulate to determine > it's halting or otherwise. We all know or could construct some such > cases. > > I suspect he was tricked because PO used H and D as the names without > making it clear that D was constructed from H in the usual way (Sipser > uses H and D in at least one of his proofs). Of course, he is clued in > enough know that, if D is indeed constructed from H like that, the > "minor remark" becomes true by being a hypothetical: if the moon is made > of cheese, the Martians can look forward to a fine fondue. But, > personally, I think the professor is more straight talking than that, > and he simply took as a method that can work for some inputs. That's > the only way is could be seen as a "minor remark" with being accused of > being disingenuous. On 8/23/2024 9:10 PM, Mike Terry wrote: > So that PO will have no cause to quote me as supporting his case: what > Sipser understood he was agreeing to was NOT what PO interprets it as > meaning. Sipser would not agree that the conclusion applies in PO's > HHH(DDD) scenario, where DDD halts. On 5/2/2025 9:16 PM, Mike Terry wrote: > PO is trying to interpret Sipser's quote: > > --- Start Sipser quote > If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D > until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never > stop running unless aborted then > > H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D > specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. > --- End Sipser quote > > The following interpretation is ok: > > If H is given input D, and while simulating D gathers enough > information to deduce that UTM(D) would never halt, then > H can abort its simulation and decide D never halts. > > I'd say it's obvious that this is what Sipser is saying, because it's > natural, correct, and relevant to what was being discussed (valid > strategy for a simulating halt decider). It is trivial to check that > what my interpretation says is valid: > > if UTM(D) would never halt, then D never halts, so if H(D) returns > never_halts then that is the correct answer for the input. QED :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-21 03:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251020200810.727@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #640346 |
On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/20/2025 9:11 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 10/20/2025 8:27 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 10/20/2025 4:03 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 1:29 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/19/2025 2:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-19, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> i don't get y polcott keep hanging onto ai for dear life. anyone with >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Throngs of dumb boomers are falling for AI generated videos, believing >>>>>>>>>> them to be real. This is much the same thing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> AI is just another thing Olcott has no understanding of. He's not >>>>>>>>>> researched the fundamentals of what it means to train a language >>>>>>>>>> network, and how it is ultimately just token prediction. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It excels at generating good syntax. The reason for that is that the >>>>>>>>>> vast amount of training data exhibits good syntax. (Where it has bad >>>>>>>>>> syntax, it is idiosyncratic; whereas good syntax is broadly shared.) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I provide a basis to it and it does perform valid >>>>>>>>> semantic logical entailment on this basis and shows >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But you're incapable of recognizing valid entailment from invalid. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any freaking idiot can spew out baseless rhetoric >>>>>>> such as this. I could do the same sort of thing >>>>>>> and say you are wrong and stupidly wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> But you don't? >>>>>> >>>>>>> It is a whole other ballgame when one attempts >>>>>>> to point out actual errors that are not anchored >>>>>>> in one's own lack of comprehension. >>>>>> >>>>>> You don't comprehend the pointing-out. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You need to have a sound reasoning basis to prove >>>>> that an error is an actual error. >>>> >>>> No; /YOU/ need to have sound reasonings to prove /YOUR/ >>>> extraordinary claims. The burden is on you. >>>> >>>> We already have the solid reasoning which says things are other than as >>>> you say, and you don't have the faintest idea how to put a dent in it. >>>> >>> >>> In other words you assume that I must be wrong >>> entirely on the basis that what I say does not >>> conform to conventional wisdom. >> >> Yes; you are wrong entirely on the basis that what you say does not >> follow a valid mode of inference for refuting an argument. >> >> If you are trying to refute something which is not only a widely >> accepted result, but whose reasoning anyone can follow to see it >> for themselves, you are automatically assumed wrong. >> >> The established result is presumed correct, pending your >> presentation of a convincing argument. >> >> That's not just wanton arbitrariness: your claims are being >> directly refuted by elements of the established result which >> we can refer to. >> >> I cannot identify any flaw in the halting theorem. It's not simply >> that I believe it because of the Big Names attached to it. >> > > And when I identify a flaw yo simply ignore > whatever I say. Nope; all the ways you say claim you've identified a flaw have been dissected by multiple poeple to a much greater detail than they deserve. It is disingenuous to say that you've simply had your details ignored. >> I'm convinced by the argumentation; and that conviction has >> the side effect of convincing me of the falsehood of your >> ineffective, contrary argumentation. >> > > Not really it actually gives you the bias to refuse > to pay attention. LOL! the world at large is incredibly biased against giving a crank like you any attention. Those of us present are overcoming the world's /immense/ bias and actually indulging the details of your claims. > >>> That is not any actual rebuttal of the specific points that I make. >> >> No, indeed /that/ isn't; but plenty of those have also been made not >> only by me but various others, over a considerable time span. >> > > Never any actual rebuttal ever since Professor > Sipser agreed with my words. You're forgetting (of course, isnce it was more than 48-72 hours ago) that I (almost) also agree with those words. > Those exact same > words still form the basis of my whole proof. They don't do that, though. > *Here is an accurate paraphrase of those words* > ><Input to LLM systems> > > Perform the complete simulation specified in main() and provide a > full execution trace before doing anything else. > > Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until: Yes; it correctly steps each x86 instructions with Debug_Step until: > (a) It correctly detects that its simulated input cannot > possibly reach its own simulated final halt state then: It correctly detects the situation that: if it doesn't abort, the simulation will not end. What this means is that if, hypothetically, HHH //were differently defined// as a non-aborting decider, then DD //would also be differntly defined// as a non-terminating case. This hypothesis doesn't mean fuck all because it's not reality. HHH is not differently defined other than as it is, and likewise DD is not differently defined. HHH is required to report on the current definition of DD, which is built on the current definition of HHH. In any case, yes; the abort is necessary to avoid non-termination. > abort simulation and return 0 rejecting its input as non-halting. And yes, I agree that it aborts the simulation, returns 0 which indicates that it's rejecting the input as non-halting. (Unfortunately, that is wrong). But mostly the words can be rationally agreed to with the caveat that HHH's result may not be interpreted to be about a hypothetical different version of itself acting on a different input. HHH must be reporting about the actual instruction string DD that it is actually given. (As you like to repeat.) Not some fantasy other versions of these. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-20 22:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10d6um6$3lfba$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640350 |
On 10/20/2025 10:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 10/20/2025 9:11 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> In other words you assume that I must be wrong >>>> entirely on the basis that what I say does not >>>> conform to conventional wisdom. >>> >>> Yes; you are wrong entirely on the basis that what you say does not >>> follow a valid mode of inference for refuting an argument. >>> >>> If you are trying to refute something which is not only a widely >>> accepted result, but whose reasoning anyone can follow to see it >>> for themselves, you are automatically assumed wrong. >>> >>> The established result is presumed correct, pending your >>> presentation of a convincing argument. >>> >>> That's not just wanton arbitrariness: your claims are being >>> directly refuted by elements of the established result which >>> we can refer to. >>> >>> I cannot identify any flaw in the halting theorem. It's not simply >>> that I believe it because of the Big Names attached to it. >>> >> >> And when I identify a flaw yo simply ignore >> whatever I say. > > Nope; all the ways you say claim you've identified a flaw have been > dissected by multiple poeple to a much greater detail than they deserve. > > It is disingenuous to say that you've simply had your details ignored. > >>> I'm convinced by the argumentation; and that conviction has >>> the side effect of convincing me of the falsehood of your >>> ineffective, contrary argumentation. >>> >> >> Not really it actually gives you the bias to refuse >> to pay attention. > > LOL! the world at large is incredibly biased against giving a crank > like you any attention. > Hence the huge advantage of LLMs. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-22 06:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10dagq1$k07m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640350 |
On 10/20/2025 10:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 10/20/2025 9:11 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 10/20/2025 8:27 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 10/20/2025 4:03 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 1:29 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/19/2025 2:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-19, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> i don't get y polcott keep hanging onto ai for dear life. anyone with >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Throngs of dumb boomers are falling for AI generated videos, believing >>>>>>>>>>> them to be real. This is much the same thing. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> AI is just another thing Olcott has no understanding of. He's not >>>>>>>>>>> researched the fundamentals of what it means to train a language >>>>>>>>>>> network, and how it is ultimately just token prediction. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It excels at generating good syntax. The reason for that is that the >>>>>>>>>>> vast amount of training data exhibits good syntax. (Where it has bad >>>>>>>>>>> syntax, it is idiosyncratic; whereas good syntax is broadly shared.) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I provide a basis to it and it does perform valid >>>>>>>>>> semantic logical entailment on this basis and shows >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But you're incapable of recognizing valid entailment from invalid. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Any freaking idiot can spew out baseless rhetoric >>>>>>>> such as this. I could do the same sort of thing >>>>>>>> and say you are wrong and stupidly wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But you don't? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is a whole other ballgame when one attempts >>>>>>>> to point out actual errors that are not anchored >>>>>>>> in one's own lack of comprehension. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You don't comprehend the pointing-out. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You need to have a sound reasoning basis to prove >>>>>> that an error is an actual error. >>>>> >>>>> No; /YOU/ need to have sound reasonings to prove /YOUR/ >>>>> extraordinary claims. The burden is on you. >>>>> >>>>> We already have the solid reasoning which says things are other than as >>>>> you say, and you don't have the faintest idea how to put a dent in it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> In other words you assume that I must be wrong >>>> entirely on the basis that what I say does not >>>> conform to conventional wisdom. >>> >>> Yes; you are wrong entirely on the basis that what you say does not >>> follow a valid mode of inference for refuting an argument. >>> >>> If you are trying to refute something which is not only a widely >>> accepted result, but whose reasoning anyone can follow to see it >>> for themselves, you are automatically assumed wrong. >>> >>> The established result is presumed correct, pending your >>> presentation of a convincing argument. >>> >>> That's not just wanton arbitrariness: your claims are being >>> directly refuted by elements of the established result which >>> we can refer to. >>> >>> I cannot identify any flaw in the halting theorem. It's not simply >>> that I believe it because of the Big Names attached to it. >>> >> >> And when I identify a flaw yo simply ignore >> whatever I say. > > Nope; all the ways you say claim you've identified a flaw have been > dissected by multiple poeple to a much greater detail than they deserve. > > It is disingenuous to say that you've simply had your details ignored. > Turing machines in general can only compute mappings from their inputs. The halting problem requires computing mappings that in some cases are not provided in the inputs therefore the halting problem is wrong. Blah, Blah Blah, no Olcott you are wrong, I know that you are wrong because I simply don't believe you. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-22 08:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <10daigf$kbsa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640372 |
On 10/22/2025 7:56 AM, olcott wrote: > On 10/20/2025 10:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 10/20/2025 9:11 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 10/20/2025 8:27 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 4:03 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 1:29 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/19/2025 2:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-19, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> i don't get y polcott keep hanging onto ai for dear life. >>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone with >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Throngs of dumb boomers are falling for AI generated videos, >>>>>>>>>>>> believing >>>>>>>>>>>> them to be real. This is much the same thing. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> AI is just another thing Olcott has no understanding of. >>>>>>>>>>>> He's not >>>>>>>>>>>> researched the fundamentals of what it means to train a >>>>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>>>> network, and how it is ultimately just token prediction. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It excels at generating good syntax. The reason for that is >>>>>>>>>>>> that the >>>>>>>>>>>> vast amount of training data exhibits good syntax. (Where it >>>>>>>>>>>> has bad >>>>>>>>>>>> syntax, it is idiosyncratic; whereas good syntax is broadly >>>>>>>>>>>> shared.) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I provide a basis to it and it does perform valid >>>>>>>>>>> semantic logical entailment on this basis and shows >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But you're incapable of recognizing valid entailment from >>>>>>>>>> invalid. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Any freaking idiot can spew out baseless rhetoric >>>>>>>>> such as this. I could do the same sort of thing >>>>>>>>> and say you are wrong and stupidly wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But you don't? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is a whole other ballgame when one attempts >>>>>>>>> to point out actual errors that are not anchored >>>>>>>>> in one's own lack of comprehension. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You don't comprehend the pointing-out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You need to have a sound reasoning basis to prove >>>>>>> that an error is an actual error. >>>>>> >>>>>> No; /YOU/ need to have sound reasonings to prove /YOUR/ >>>>>> extraordinary claims. The burden is on you. >>>>>> >>>>>> We already have the solid reasoning which says things are other >>>>>> than as >>>>>> you say, and you don't have the faintest idea how to put a dent in >>>>>> it. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In other words you assume that I must be wrong >>>>> entirely on the basis that what I say does not >>>>> conform to conventional wisdom. >>>> >>>> Yes; you are wrong entirely on the basis that what you say does not >>>> follow a valid mode of inference for refuting an argument. >>>> >>>> If you are trying to refute something which is not only a widely >>>> accepted result, but whose reasoning anyone can follow to see it >>>> for themselves, you are automatically assumed wrong. >>>> >>>> The established result is presumed correct, pending your >>>> presentation of a convincing argument. >>>> >>>> That's not just wanton arbitrariness: your claims are being >>>> directly refuted by elements of the established result which >>>> we can refer to. >>>> >>>> I cannot identify any flaw in the halting theorem. It's not simply >>>> that I believe it because of the Big Names attached to it. >>>> >>> >>> And when I identify a flaw yo simply ignore >>> whatever I say. >> >> Nope; all the ways you say claim you've identified a flaw have been >> dissected by multiple poeple to a much greater detail than they deserve. >> >> It is disingenuous to say that you've simply had your details ignored. >> > > Turing machines in general can only compute mappings > from their inputs. The halting problem requires computing > mappings that in some cases are not provided in the > inputs therefore the halting problem is wrong. False: (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-22 07:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10dajrk$kqr7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640373 |
On 10/22/2025 7:25 AM, dbush wrote: > On 10/22/2025 7:56 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/20/2025 10:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 10/20/2025 9:11 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 10/20/2025 8:27 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 4:03 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 1:29 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/19/2025 2:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-19, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> i don't get y polcott keep hanging onto ai for dear life. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone with >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Throngs of dumb boomers are falling for AI generated >>>>>>>>>>>>> videos, believing >>>>>>>>>>>>> them to be real. This is much the same thing. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> AI is just another thing Olcott has no understanding of. >>>>>>>>>>>>> He's not >>>>>>>>>>>>> researched the fundamentals of what it means to train a >>>>>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>>>>> network, and how it is ultimately just token prediction. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It excels at generating good syntax. The reason for that is >>>>>>>>>>>>> that the >>>>>>>>>>>>> vast amount of training data exhibits good syntax. (Where >>>>>>>>>>>>> it has bad >>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax, it is idiosyncratic; whereas good syntax is broadly >>>>>>>>>>>>> shared.) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I provide a basis to it and it does perform valid >>>>>>>>>>>> semantic logical entailment on this basis and shows >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But you're incapable of recognizing valid entailment from >>>>>>>>>>> invalid. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Any freaking idiot can spew out baseless rhetoric >>>>>>>>>> such as this. I could do the same sort of thing >>>>>>>>>> and say you are wrong and stupidly wrong. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But you don't? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is a whole other ballgame when one attempts >>>>>>>>>> to point out actual errors that are not anchored >>>>>>>>>> in one's own lack of comprehension. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You don't comprehend the pointing-out. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You need to have a sound reasoning basis to prove >>>>>>>> that an error is an actual error. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No; /YOU/ need to have sound reasonings to prove /YOUR/ >>>>>>> extraordinary claims. The burden is on you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We already have the solid reasoning which says things are other >>>>>>> than as >>>>>>> you say, and you don't have the faintest idea how to put a dent >>>>>>> in it. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words you assume that I must be wrong >>>>>> entirely on the basis that what I say does not >>>>>> conform to conventional wisdom. >>>>> >>>>> Yes; you are wrong entirely on the basis that what you say does not >>>>> follow a valid mode of inference for refuting an argument. >>>>> >>>>> If you are trying to refute something which is not only a widely >>>>> accepted result, but whose reasoning anyone can follow to see it >>>>> for themselves, you are automatically assumed wrong. >>>>> >>>>> The established result is presumed correct, pending your >>>>> presentation of a convincing argument. >>>>> >>>>> That's not just wanton arbitrariness: your claims are being >>>>> directly refuted by elements of the established result which >>>>> we can refer to. >>>>> >>>>> I cannot identify any flaw in the halting theorem. It's not simply >>>>> that I believe it because of the Big Names attached to it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> And when I identify a flaw yo simply ignore >>>> whatever I say. >>> >>> Nope; all the ways you say claim you've identified a flaw have been >>> dissected by multiple poeple to a much greater detail than they deserve. >>> >>> It is disingenuous to say that you've simply had your details ignored. >>> >> >> Turing machines in general can only compute mappings >> from their inputs. The halting problem requires computing >> mappings that in some cases are not provided in the >> inputs therefore the halting problem is wrong. > > False: > > (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly > (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly > Yes that it the exact error that I have been referring to. In the case of HHH(DD) the above requires HHH to report on the behavior of its caller and HHH has no way to even know who its caller is. My simulating halt decider exposed the gap of false assumptions because there are no assumptions everything is fully operational code. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-22 09:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <10dakha$kbsi$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640375 |
On 10/22/2025 8:48 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/22/2025 7:25 AM, dbush wrote:
>> On 10/22/2025 7:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2025 10:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/20/2025 9:11 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 8:27 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 4:03 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 1:29 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/19/2025 2:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-19, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i don't get y polcott keep hanging onto ai for dear life.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Throngs of dumb boomers are falling for AI generated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> videos, believing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them to be real. This is much the same thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AI is just another thing Olcott has no understanding of.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He's not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> researched the fundamentals of what it means to train a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> network, and how it is ultimately just token prediction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It excels at generating good syntax. The reason for that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vast amount of training data exhibits good syntax. (Where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax, it is idiosyncratic; whereas good syntax is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> broadly shared.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I provide a basis to it and it does perform valid
>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic logical entailment on this basis and shows
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But you're incapable of recognizing valid entailment from
>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Any freaking idiot can spew out baseless rhetoric
>>>>>>>>>>> such as this. I could do the same sort of thing
>>>>>>>>>>> and say you are wrong and stupidly wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But you don't?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is a whole other ballgame when one attempts
>>>>>>>>>>> to point out actual errors that are not anchored
>>>>>>>>>>> in one's own lack of comprehension.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You don't comprehend the pointing-out.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You need to have a sound reasoning basis to prove
>>>>>>>>> that an error is an actual error.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No; /YOU/ need to have sound reasonings to prove /YOUR/
>>>>>>>> extraordinary claims. The burden is on you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We already have the solid reasoning which says things are other
>>>>>>>> than as
>>>>>>>> you say, and you don't have the faintest idea how to put a dent
>>>>>>>> in it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words you assume that I must be wrong
>>>>>>> entirely on the basis that what I say does not
>>>>>>> conform to conventional wisdom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes; you are wrong entirely on the basis that what you say does not
>>>>>> follow a valid mode of inference for refuting an argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are trying to refute something which is not only a widely
>>>>>> accepted result, but whose reasoning anyone can follow to see it
>>>>>> for themselves, you are automatically assumed wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The established result is presumed correct, pending your
>>>>>> presentation of a convincing argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not just wanton arbitrariness: your claims are being
>>>>>> directly refuted by elements of the established result which
>>>>>> we can refer to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I cannot identify any flaw in the halting theorem. It's not simply
>>>>>> that I believe it because of the Big Names attached to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And when I identify a flaw yo simply ignore
>>>>> whatever I say.
>>>>
>>>> Nope; all the ways you say claim you've identified a flaw have been
>>>> dissected by multiple poeple to a much greater detail than they
>>>> deserve.
>>>>
>>>> It is disingenuous to say that you've simply had your details ignored.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Turing machines in general can only compute mappings
>>> from their inputs. The halting problem requires computing
>>> mappings that in some cases are not provided in the
>>> inputs therefore the halting problem is wrong.
>>
>> False:
>>
>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
>> directly
>>
>
> Yes that it the exact error that I have been
> referring to.
That is not an error. That is simply a mapping that you have admitted
exists.
>
> In the case of HHH(DD) the above requires HHH to
> report on the behavior of its caller
False. It requires HHH to report on the behavior of the machine
described by its input.
int main {
DD() // this
HHH(DD) // is not the caller of this
return 0;
}
> and HHH has
> no way to even know who its caller is.
Irrelevant.
>
> My simulating halt decider
in other words, something that uses simulation to compute the following
mapping:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X
described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the
following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
> exposed the gap of
> false assumptions
The only false assumption is that the above requirements can be
satisfied, which Turing and Linz proved to be false and that you have
*explicitly* agreed with.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-22 08:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10dana3$lmat$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640376 |
On 10/22/2025 8:00 AM, dbush wrote: > On 10/22/2025 8:48 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/22/2025 7:25 AM, dbush wrote: >>> On 10/22/2025 7:56 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/20/2025 10:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 10/20/2025 9:11 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 8:27 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 4:03 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 1:29 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/19/2025 2:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-19, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i don't get y polcott keep hanging onto ai for dear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life. anyone with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Throngs of dumb boomers are falling for AI generated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> videos, believing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them to be real. This is much the same thing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AI is just another thing Olcott has no understanding of. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He's not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> researched the fundamentals of what it means to train a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> network, and how it is ultimately just token prediction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It excels at generating good syntax. The reason for that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vast amount of training data exhibits good syntax. (Where >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has bad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax, it is idiosyncratic; whereas good syntax is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> broadly shared.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I provide a basis to it and it does perform valid >>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic logical entailment on this basis and shows >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you're incapable of recognizing valid entailment from >>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Any freaking idiot can spew out baseless rhetoric >>>>>>>>>>>> such as this. I could do the same sort of thing >>>>>>>>>>>> and say you are wrong and stupidly wrong. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But you don't? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is a whole other ballgame when one attempts >>>>>>>>>>>> to point out actual errors that are not anchored >>>>>>>>>>>> in one's own lack of comprehension. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You don't comprehend the pointing-out. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You need to have a sound reasoning basis to prove >>>>>>>>>> that an error is an actual error. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No; /YOU/ need to have sound reasonings to prove /YOUR/ >>>>>>>>> extraordinary claims. The burden is on you. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We already have the solid reasoning which says things are other >>>>>>>>> than as >>>>>>>>> you say, and you don't have the faintest idea how to put a dent >>>>>>>>> in it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In other words you assume that I must be wrong >>>>>>>> entirely on the basis that what I say does not >>>>>>>> conform to conventional wisdom. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes; you are wrong entirely on the basis that what you say does not >>>>>>> follow a valid mode of inference for refuting an argument. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you are trying to refute something which is not only a widely >>>>>>> accepted result, but whose reasoning anyone can follow to see it >>>>>>> for themselves, you are automatically assumed wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The established result is presumed correct, pending your >>>>>>> presentation of a convincing argument. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's not just wanton arbitrariness: your claims are being >>>>>>> directly refuted by elements of the established result which >>>>>>> we can refer to. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I cannot identify any flaw in the halting theorem. It's not simply >>>>>>> that I believe it because of the Big Names attached to it. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And when I identify a flaw yo simply ignore >>>>>> whatever I say. >>>>> >>>>> Nope; all the ways you say claim you've identified a flaw have been >>>>> dissected by multiple poeple to a much greater detail than they >>>>> deserve. >>>>> >>>>> It is disingenuous to say that you've simply had your details ignored. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Turing machines in general can only compute mappings >>>> from their inputs. The halting problem requires computing >>>> mappings that in some cases are not provided in the >>>> inputs therefore the halting problem is wrong. >>> >>> False: >>> >>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed >>> directly >>> >> >> Yes that it the exact error that I have been >> referring to. > > That is not an error. That is simply a mapping that you have admitted > exists. > >> >> In the case of HHH(DD) the above requires HHH to >> report on the behavior of its caller > > False. It requires HHH to report on the behavior of the machine > described by its input. > That includes that DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive simulation. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-22 09:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <10danfd$kbsi$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640378 |
On 10/22/2025 9:47 AM, olcott wrote: > On 10/22/2025 8:00 AM, dbush wrote: >> On 10/22/2025 8:48 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/22/2025 7:25 AM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 10/22/2025 7:56 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/20/2025 10:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 9:11 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 8:27 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 4:03 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 1:29 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/19/2025 2:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-19, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i don't get y polcott keep hanging onto ai for dear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life. anyone with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Throngs of dumb boomers are falling for AI generated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> videos, believing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them to be real. This is much the same thing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AI is just another thing Olcott has no understanding of. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He's not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> researched the fundamentals of what it means to train a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> network, and how it is ultimately just token prediction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It excels at generating good syntax. The reason for that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vast amount of training data exhibits good syntax. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Where it has bad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax, it is idiosyncratic; whereas good syntax is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> broadly shared.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I provide a basis to it and it does perform valid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic logical entailment on this basis and shows >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you're incapable of recognizing valid entailment from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Any freaking idiot can spew out baseless rhetoric >>>>>>>>>>>>> such as this. I could do the same sort of thing >>>>>>>>>>>>> and say you are wrong and stupidly wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But you don't? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a whole other ballgame when one attempts >>>>>>>>>>>>> to point out actual errors that are not anchored >>>>>>>>>>>>> in one's own lack of comprehension. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You don't comprehend the pointing-out. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You need to have a sound reasoning basis to prove >>>>>>>>>>> that an error is an actual error. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No; /YOU/ need to have sound reasonings to prove /YOUR/ >>>>>>>>>> extraordinary claims. The burden is on you. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We already have the solid reasoning which says things are >>>>>>>>>> other than as >>>>>>>>>> you say, and you don't have the faintest idea how to put a >>>>>>>>>> dent in it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In other words you assume that I must be wrong >>>>>>>>> entirely on the basis that what I say does not >>>>>>>>> conform to conventional wisdom. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes; you are wrong entirely on the basis that what you say does not >>>>>>>> follow a valid mode of inference for refuting an argument. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you are trying to refute something which is not only a widely >>>>>>>> accepted result, but whose reasoning anyone can follow to see it >>>>>>>> for themselves, you are automatically assumed wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The established result is presumed correct, pending your >>>>>>>> presentation of a convincing argument. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's not just wanton arbitrariness: your claims are being >>>>>>>> directly refuted by elements of the established result which >>>>>>>> we can refer to. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I cannot identify any flaw in the halting theorem. It's not simply >>>>>>>> that I believe it because of the Big Names attached to it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And when I identify a flaw yo simply ignore >>>>>>> whatever I say. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope; all the ways you say claim you've identified a flaw have been >>>>>> dissected by multiple poeple to a much greater detail than they >>>>>> deserve. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is disingenuous to say that you've simply had your details >>>>>> ignored. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Turing machines in general can only compute mappings >>>>> from their inputs. The halting problem requires computing >>>>> mappings that in some cases are not provided in the >>>>> inputs therefore the halting problem is wrong. >>>> >>>> False: >>>> >>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed >>>> directly >>>> >>> >>> Yes that it the exact error that I have been >>> referring to. >> >> That is not an error. That is simply a mapping that you have admitted >> exists. >> >>> >>> In the case of HHH(DD) the above requires HHH to >>> report on the behavior of its caller >> >> False. It requires HHH to report on the behavior of the machine >> described by its input. >> > > That includes that DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive > simulation. Which therefore includes the fact that HHH(DD) will return 0 and that DD will subsequently halt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-22 09:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10dapgc$mejp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640379 |
On 10/22/2025 8:50 AM, dbush wrote: > On 10/22/2025 9:47 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/22/2025 8:00 AM, dbush wrote: >>> On 10/22/2025 8:48 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/22/2025 7:25 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 10/22/2025 7:56 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 10/20/2025 10:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 9:11 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 8:27 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 4:03 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 1:29 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/19/2025 2:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-19, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i don't get y polcott keep hanging onto ai for dear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life. anyone with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Throngs of dumb boomers are falling for AI generated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> videos, believing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them to be real. This is much the same thing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AI is just another thing Olcott has no understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of. He's not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> researched the fundamentals of what it means to train a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> network, and how it is ultimately just token prediction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It excels at generating good syntax. The reason for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vast amount of training data exhibits good syntax. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Where it has bad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax, it is idiosyncratic; whereas good syntax is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> broadly shared.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I provide a basis to it and it does perform valid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic logical entailment on this basis and shows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you're incapable of recognizing valid entailment from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any freaking idiot can spew out baseless rhetoric >>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as this. I could do the same sort of thing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and say you are wrong and stupidly wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you don't? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a whole other ballgame when one attempts >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to point out actual errors that are not anchored >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in one's own lack of comprehension. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't comprehend the pointing-out. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You need to have a sound reasoning basis to prove >>>>>>>>>>>> that an error is an actual error. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No; /YOU/ need to have sound reasonings to prove /YOUR/ >>>>>>>>>>> extraordinary claims. The burden is on you. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We already have the solid reasoning which says things are >>>>>>>>>>> other than as >>>>>>>>>>> you say, and you don't have the faintest idea how to put a >>>>>>>>>>> dent in it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In other words you assume that I must be wrong >>>>>>>>>> entirely on the basis that what I say does not >>>>>>>>>> conform to conventional wisdom. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes; you are wrong entirely on the basis that what you say does >>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>> follow a valid mode of inference for refuting an argument. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you are trying to refute something which is not only a widely >>>>>>>>> accepted result, but whose reasoning anyone can follow to see it >>>>>>>>> for themselves, you are automatically assumed wrong. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The established result is presumed correct, pending your >>>>>>>>> presentation of a convincing argument. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's not just wanton arbitrariness: your claims are being >>>>>>>>> directly refuted by elements of the established result which >>>>>>>>> we can refer to. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I cannot identify any flaw in the halting theorem. It's not simply >>>>>>>>> that I believe it because of the Big Names attached to it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And when I identify a flaw yo simply ignore >>>>>>>> whatever I say. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope; all the ways you say claim you've identified a flaw have been >>>>>>> dissected by multiple poeple to a much greater detail than they >>>>>>> deserve. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is disingenuous to say that you've simply had your details >>>>>>> ignored. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Turing machines in general can only compute mappings >>>>>> from their inputs. The halting problem requires computing >>>>>> mappings that in some cases are not provided in the >>>>>> inputs therefore the halting problem is wrong. >>>>> >>>>> False: >>>>> >>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed >>>>> directly >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes that it the exact error that I have been >>>> referring to. >>> >>> That is not an error. That is simply a mapping that you have >>> admitted exists. >>> >>>> >>>> In the case of HHH(DD) the above requires HHH to >>>> report on the behavior of its caller >>> >>> False. It requires HHH to report on the behavior of the machine >>> described by its input. >>> >> >> That includes that DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive >> simulation. > > Which therefore includes the fact that HHH(DD) will return 0 and that DD > will subsequently halt. You keep ignoring that we are only focusing on DD correctly simulated by HHH. In other words the behavior that HHH computes FROM ITS ACTUAL FREAKING INPUT NOT ANY OTHER DAMN THING -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-22 14:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <QrJYz12xg418Rhg-m8UM5Ignt00@jntp> |
| In reply to | #640381 |
Le 22/10/2025 à 16:25, olcott a écrit : > On 10/22/2025 8:50 AM, dbush wrote: >> On 10/22/2025 9:47 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/22/2025 8:00 AM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 10/22/2025 8:48 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/22/2025 7:25 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 10/22/2025 7:56 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 10:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 9:11 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 8:27 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 4:03 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 1:29 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/19/2025 2:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-19, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i don't get y polcott keep hanging onto ai for dear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life. anyone with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Throngs of dumb boomers are falling for AI generated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> videos, believing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them to be real. This is much the same thing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AI is just another thing Olcott has no understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of. He's not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> researched the fundamentals of what it means to train a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> network, and how it is ultimately just token prediction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It excels at generating good syntax. The reason for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vast amount of training data exhibits good syntax. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Where it has bad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax, it is idiosyncratic; whereas good syntax is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> broadly shared.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I provide a basis to it and it does perform valid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic logical entailment on this basis and shows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you're incapable of recognizing valid entailment from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any freaking idiot can spew out baseless rhetoric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as this. I could do the same sort of thing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and say you are wrong and stupidly wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you don't? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a whole other ballgame when one attempts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to point out actual errors that are not anchored >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in one's own lack of comprehension. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't comprehend the pointing-out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You need to have a sound reasoning basis to prove >>>>>>>>>>>>> that an error is an actual error. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No; /YOU/ need to have sound reasonings to prove /YOUR/ >>>>>>>>>>>> extraordinary claims. The burden is on you. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We already have the solid reasoning which says things are >>>>>>>>>>>> other than as >>>>>>>>>>>> you say, and you don't have the faintest idea how to put a >>>>>>>>>>>> dent in it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In other words you assume that I must be wrong >>>>>>>>>>> entirely on the basis that what I say does not >>>>>>>>>>> conform to conventional wisdom. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes; you are wrong entirely on the basis that what you say does >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> follow a valid mode of inference for refuting an argument. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you are trying to refute something which is not only a widely >>>>>>>>>> accepted result, but whose reasoning anyone can follow to see it >>>>>>>>>> for themselves, you are automatically assumed wrong. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The established result is presumed correct, pending your >>>>>>>>>> presentation of a convincing argument. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's not just wanton arbitrariness: your claims are being >>>>>>>>>> directly refuted by elements of the established result which >>>>>>>>>> we can refer to. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I cannot identify any flaw in the halting theorem. It's not simply >>>>>>>>>> that I believe it because of the Big Names attached to it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And when I identify a flaw yo simply ignore >>>>>>>>> whatever I say. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope; all the ways you say claim you've identified a flaw have been >>>>>>>> dissected by multiple poeple to a much greater detail than they >>>>>>>> deserve. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is disingenuous to say that you've simply had your details >>>>>>>> ignored. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Turing machines in general can only compute mappings >>>>>>> from their inputs. The halting problem requires computing >>>>>>> mappings that in some cases are not provided in the >>>>>>> inputs therefore the halting problem is wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> False: >>>>>> >>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed >>>>>> directly >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes that it the exact error that I have been >>>>> referring to. >>>> >>>> That is not an error. That is simply a mapping that you have >>>> admitted exists. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> In the case of HHH(DD) the above requires HHH to >>>>> report on the behavior of its caller >>>> >>>> False. It requires HHH to report on the behavior of the machine >>>> described by its input. >>>> >>> >>> That includes that DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive >>> simulation. >> >> Which therefore includes the fact that HHH(DD) will return 0 and that DD >> will subsequently halt. > > You keep ignoring that we are only focusing on > DD correctly simulated by HHH. In other words > the behavior that HHH computes > FROM ITS ACTUAL FREAKING INPUT NOT ANY OTHER DAMN THING and the answer is wrong...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-22 13:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <10db4bb$pmc4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640381 |
On 10/22/2025 10:25 AM, olcott wrote: > On 10/22/2025 8:50 AM, dbush wrote: >> On 10/22/2025 9:47 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/22/2025 8:00 AM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 10/22/2025 8:48 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/22/2025 7:25 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 10/22/2025 7:56 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 10:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 9:11 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 8:27 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 4:03 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 1:29 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/19/2025 2:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-19, dart200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i don't get y polcott keep hanging onto ai for dear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life. anyone with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Throngs of dumb boomers are falling for AI generated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> videos, believing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them to be real. This is much the same thing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AI is just another thing Olcott has no understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of. He's not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> researched the fundamentals of what it means to train >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> network, and how it is ultimately just token prediction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It excels at generating good syntax. The reason for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vast amount of training data exhibits good syntax. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Where it has bad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax, it is idiosyncratic; whereas good syntax is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> broadly shared.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I provide a basis to it and it does perform valid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic logical entailment on this basis and shows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you're incapable of recognizing valid entailment >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from invalid. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any freaking idiot can spew out baseless rhetoric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as this. I could do the same sort of thing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and say you are wrong and stupidly wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you don't? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a whole other ballgame when one attempts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to point out actual errors that are not anchored >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in one's own lack of comprehension. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't comprehend the pointing-out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You need to have a sound reasoning basis to prove >>>>>>>>>>>>> that an error is an actual error. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No; /YOU/ need to have sound reasonings to prove /YOUR/ >>>>>>>>>>>> extraordinary claims. The burden is on you. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We already have the solid reasoning which says things are >>>>>>>>>>>> other than as >>>>>>>>>>>> you say, and you don't have the faintest idea how to put a >>>>>>>>>>>> dent in it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In other words you assume that I must be wrong >>>>>>>>>>> entirely on the basis that what I say does not >>>>>>>>>>> conform to conventional wisdom. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes; you are wrong entirely on the basis that what you say >>>>>>>>>> does not >>>>>>>>>> follow a valid mode of inference for refuting an argument. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you are trying to refute something which is not only a widely >>>>>>>>>> accepted result, but whose reasoning anyone can follow to see it >>>>>>>>>> for themselves, you are automatically assumed wrong. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The established result is presumed correct, pending your >>>>>>>>>> presentation of a convincing argument. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's not just wanton arbitrariness: your claims are being >>>>>>>>>> directly refuted by elements of the established result which >>>>>>>>>> we can refer to. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I cannot identify any flaw in the halting theorem. It's not >>>>>>>>>> simply >>>>>>>>>> that I believe it because of the Big Names attached to it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And when I identify a flaw yo simply ignore >>>>>>>>> whatever I say. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope; all the ways you say claim you've identified a flaw have been >>>>>>>> dissected by multiple poeple to a much greater detail than they >>>>>>>> deserve. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is disingenuous to say that you've simply had your details >>>>>>>> ignored. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Turing machines in general can only compute mappings >>>>>>> from their inputs. The halting problem requires computing >>>>>>> mappings that in some cases are not provided in the >>>>>>> inputs therefore the halting problem is wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> False: >>>>>> >>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed >>>>>> directly >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes that it the exact error that I have been >>>>> referring to. >>>> >>>> That is not an error. That is simply a mapping that you have >>>> admitted exists. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> In the case of HHH(DD) the above requires HHH to >>>>> report on the behavior of its caller >>>> >>>> False. It requires HHH to report on the behavior of the machine >>>> described by its input. >>>> >>> >>> That includes that DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive >>> simulation. >> >> Which therefore includes the fact that HHH(DD) will return 0 and that >> DD will subsequently halt. > > You keep ignoring that we are only focusing on > DD correctly simulated by HHH. Which doesn't exist because HHH aborts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-22 15:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251022083441.981@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #640372 |
On 2025-10-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/20/2025 10:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> And when I identify a flaw yo simply ignore >>> whatever I say. >> >> Nope; all the ways you say claim you've identified a flaw have been >> dissected by multiple poeple to a much greater detail than they deserve. >> >> It is disingenuous to say that you've simply had your details ignored. >> > > Turing machines in general can only compute mappings > from their inputs. The halting problem requires computing > mappings that in some cases are not provided in the > inputs therefore the halting problem is wrong. The halting problem positively does not propose anything like that, which would be gapingly wrong. > Blah, Blah Blah, no Olcott you are wrong, I know > that you are wrong because I simply don't believe you. You are wrong because I (1) don't see that gaping flaw in the definition of the halting problem, (2) you don't even try to explain how such that flaw can be. Where, how, why is any decider being asked to decide something other than an input representable as a finite string. I've repeated many times that the diagonal case is constructable as a finite string, whose halting status can be readily ascertained. Because it's obvious to me, of course I'm going to reject baseless claims that simply ask me to /believe/ otherwise. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-22 10:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10daub6$nvbc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640385 |
On 10/22/2025 10:40 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-10-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 10/20/2025 10:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> And when I identify a flaw yo simply ignore >>>> whatever I say. >>> >>> Nope; all the ways you say claim you've identified a flaw have been >>> dissected by multiple poeple to a much greater detail than they deserve. >>> >>> It is disingenuous to say that you've simply had your details ignored. >>> >> >> Turing machines in general can only compute mappings >> from their inputs. The halting problem requires computing >> mappings that in some cases are not provided in the >> inputs therefore the halting problem is wrong. > > The halting problem positively does not propose anything > like that, which would be gapingly wrong. > It only seems that way because you are unable to provide the actual mapping that the actual input to HHH(DD) specifies when DD is simulated by HHH according to the semantics of the C language, even though I do remember that you did do this once. No sense moving on to any other point until mutual agreement on this mandatory prerequisite. >> Blah, Blah Blah, no Olcott you are wrong, I know >> that you are wrong because I simply don't believe you. > > You are wrong because I (1) don't see that gaping flaw in the > definition of the halting problem, (2) you don't even > try to explain how such that flaw can be. Where, how, why > is any decider being asked to decide something other than > an input representable as a finite string. > > I've repeated many times that the diagonal case is constructable as a > finite string, whose halting status can be readily ascertained. > > Because it's obvious to me, of course I'm going to reject > baseless claims that simply ask me to /believe/ otherwise. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-22 17:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251022095644.76@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #640387 |
On 2025-10-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/22/2025 10:40 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-10-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 10/20/2025 10:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> And when I identify a flaw yo simply ignore >>>>> whatever I say. >>>> >>>> Nope; all the ways you say claim you've identified a flaw have been >>>> dissected by multiple poeple to a much greater detail than they deserve. >>>> >>>> It is disingenuous to say that you've simply had your details ignored. >>>> >>> >>> Turing machines in general can only compute mappings >>> from their inputs. The halting problem requires computing >>> mappings that in some cases are not provided in the >>> inputs therefore the halting problem is wrong. >> >> The halting problem positively does not propose anything >> like that, which would be gapingly wrong. > > It only seems that way because you are unable to No, it doesn't only seem that way. Thanks for playing. > provide the actual mapping that the actual input > to HHH(DD) specifies when DD is simulated by HHH > according to the semantics of the C language, DD is a "finite string input" which specifies a behavior that is independent of what simulates it, and in what manner. When DD is simulated by HHH, the simulation is left incomplete. That is not permitted by the semantics of the source or target language in which DD is written; an incomplete simulation is an incorrect simulation. Thus, DD being simulated by HHH according to the semantics. The semantics say that there is a next statement or instruction to execute, which HHH neglects to do. Now that would be fine, because HHH's job isn't to evoke the full behavior of DD but only to predict whether it will halt. But HHH does that incorrectly; the correct halting status is 1, not 0. Thus HHH achieves neither a correct simulation, nor a correct appraisal of the halting status. > even though I do remember that you did do this once. I must have accidentally written something that looked like crackpottery. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web