Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #640679 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-11-12 08:45 -0600 |
| Last post | 2025-11-29 12:28 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 137 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 08:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 11:57 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-12 18:12 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 14:30 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-14 20:43 +0000
"true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 10:01 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-16 22:20 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 11:36 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 21:11 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:45 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 02:28 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:51 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 09:15 -0600
The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:59 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:22 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 06:40 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 01:03 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 19:36 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 18:51 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:22 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 20:55 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 21:24 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 20:49 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 13:50 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 22:05 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 02:47 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 21:04 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-21 01:14 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-21 01:28 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 22:00 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 18:07 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 18:31 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 19:43 -0500
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 18:46 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 03:07 +0000
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 19:10 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 19:36 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 21:18 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:10 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-18 17:40 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 19:46 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 17:17 +0000
help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 10:43 -0800
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 18:48 +0000
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 11:19 -0800
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 19:47 +0000
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox --- TXR and AWK olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:49 -0600
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 21:01 -0800
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:18 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 13:03 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 03:45 +0000
polcott agrees the halting problem is wrong olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 22:07 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 17:41 +0000
polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:37 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 20:55 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 15:05 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 21:41 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 21:12 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 04:42 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 22:57 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 13:22 -0800
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 22:10 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 14:56 -0800
polcott agrees that the halting problem is incorrect in this way olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:47 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-18 23:47 +0000
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 00:13 +0000
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-19 00:57 +0000
polcott has shwn that the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 18:17 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 10:26 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-19 19:42 +0000
polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect --- quit lying about what I say olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:45 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:51 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2025-11-19 16:04 -0700
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 17:43 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-20 00:04 +0000
homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 18:08 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 02:29 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 18:49 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 02:58 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 19:53 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 19:55 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 12:03 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 20:14 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 20:24 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 07:22 +0000
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 18:10 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:37 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science not math olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 14:12 -0600
Making True(Language L, Expression E) always computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 09:09 -0600
halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-21 21:34 -0600
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-22 04:26 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 06:08 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 07:16 -0600
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 16:45 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 11:14 -0600
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 17:44 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 04:11 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 14:37 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 18:39 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 12:52 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:36 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 20:57 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 03:22 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:43 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 08:44 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:38 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 18:57 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 00:09 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 18:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 01:02 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 20:29 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 13:09 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 07:42 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 01:14 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 20:33 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 10:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:22 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 20:32 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:38 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:48 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-13 04:50 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 23:00 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 00:16 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:27 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:46 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 14:07 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 21:00 -0500
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-01 14:45 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:18 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 10:22 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 00:39 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 10:20 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:49 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 12:27 -0500
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:45 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:22 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 12:28 +0200
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-13 02:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251112182547.309@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #640689 |
On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/12/2025 12:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not
>>> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong]
>>> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this
>>> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums.
>>
>> Your principal modus operandi is that you reject any piece of evidence
>> which contradicts your set view in any matter.
>
> Not at all. Not ever.
Even now, in this post.
>> Here you are also doing it again: completely overlooking all the times
>> someone has agreed with you in some point, and declaring that that
>> everyon has a /personal/ bias against you.
>
> People on these forums have only agreed with
> me at most 1% of the time and the only case
1% is much larger than zero.
> besides Ben the agreement was on trivialities.
Grasping trivialities is the extent of your skill, so that's
all you get.
For me, it's a triviality that your H's are deciding the D's
wrongly, but at that point we go over your head.
> You are still trying to get away with the utter
> nonsense that once correct non-termination
> behavior criteria have been correctly met
your criteria cannot decide the fact that the NON-DIAGONAL
test case void DDD(void) { HHH(DDD); return; } terminates.
The 1 return value is correct, and HHH(DDD) /can/ return it.
DDD will not "behave opposite"; it will terminate as the 1 says.
> that you can try again and get a different
> result. I would really like to think that
> you are not a damned liar, yet no alternative
> seems reasonably plausible.
Right; no alternative even seems plausible, like that:
- Turing was right;
- Church was right;
- Goedel was right;
- C. A. R. Hore was right;
- P. Olcott was wrong;
....
Nah, cannot be! Not even /plausible/ seeming.
>> Anyway, that /is/ the right approach toward anything. Anything anyone
>> says should be suspected of having a factual or logical flaw, until
>> proven otherwise.
>>
>
> Not when the basis of proof requires them
> to actually pay close attention when they
> are utterly unwilling to do this because they
> are so sure that I must be wrong.
You have a small body of claims that you have repeated for years.
The claims have been examined in excruciating detail by all
your interlocutors.
You have /never/ responded to any criticism. You will not analyze
any rebuttal, look at any code, nothing.
Just casual dismissals, accusations of lying, stupidity, ...
>> Here is an idea for you: maybe try being right 95% of the time, for a
>> while. Say two weeks, or a month. Instead of your usual, 95%+ wrong.
>
> I have been completely right on the essence of
> what I have been saying for 22 years.
L'essence; that's French for "gas".
>> There is a human bias at play here and I will explain it to you:
>> people are more motivated to respond when you are wrong.
>
> OK some honesty, that it refreshing.
>
>> If you're 80% wrong, the 0.8 fraction of your remarks that is
>> wrong will get more engagement than the 0.2 that are right.
>> Thus it might be that, among those of your remarks which fetch
>> engagement, the fraction which are wrong might be amplified to
>> something much higher, like 0.97.
>>
>> This is why social networking algorithms are rigged to spread
>> rage bait: to drum up engagement.
>>
>> It's amazing you don't have the maturity to know all this on your own;
>> that it has to be explained to a grown up.
>>
>
> It is a verified fact that I have been continually
Verified by what third party? Oh, you mean Claude AI and Chat GPT?
Your casual dismissals and personal attacks do not verify anything.
Get someone with serious academic credentials to "validate"
your shit, then talk.
> Now I have LLM systems that show the complete details
> of exactly how and why I am correct. If they were
> simply "yes men" they could not possibly do this.
The commercially available LLM systems provided by Anthropic,
OpenAI and others all have system prompts telling them not to
antagonize the user.
An extremely common complaint (probably in the top five)
is that they are "sycophantic".
>> Most of us here struggle not to say an incorrect thing. in a comp.*
>> newsgroup or elsewhere, yet here you practically made a sport out of it;
>> you say some wrong shit more times in a day than an NBA player takes a
>> shot at the hoop.
>>
>
> I say things that do not conform to conventional
> wisdom and people here don't even understand the
> reasoning behind conventional wisdom.
>
> When I point out the error in this reasoning people
> here are utterly helpless. The most they can do is
> say that I must be wrong entirely on the basis
> that I contradict conventional wisdom.
You do not contradict conventional wisdom; you contradict
air-tight logic.
Conventional wisdom is shit like "eating carrots makes you
see sharper".
Incomputability of halting is entirely unconventional; it took
someone very smart to recognize the problem and answer it.
--
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 | 2025-11-12 20:57 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10f3hec$1siq5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640698 |
On 11/12/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/12/2025 12:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not >>>> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong] >>>> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this >>>> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums. >>> >>> Your principal modus operandi is that you reject any piece of evidence >>> which contradicts your set view in any matter. >> >> Not at all. Not ever. > > Even now, in this post. > >>> Here you are also doing it again: completely overlooking all the times >>> someone has agreed with you in some point, and declaring that that >>> everyon has a /personal/ bias against you. >> >> People on these forums have only agreed with >> me at most 1% of the time and the only case > > 1% is much larger than zero. > >> besides Ben the agreement was on trivialities. > > Grasping trivialities is the extent of your skill, so that's > all you get. > You are not following the actual reasoning of the paper. You leap to the conclusion that I am wrong. That is not you pointing out an error. You don't even know what a cycle in the directed graph of the evaluation sequence of an expression is so you lack any basis to critique this. IT IS NOT a triviality. -- 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 | 2025-11-13 03:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251112190712.297@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #640700 |
On 2025-11-13, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/12/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/12/2025 12:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not
>>>>> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong]
>>>>> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this
>>>>> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums.
>>>>
>>>> Your principal modus operandi is that you reject any piece of evidence
>>>> which contradicts your set view in any matter.
>>>
>>> Not at all. Not ever.
>>
>> Even now, in this post.
>>
>>>> Here you are also doing it again: completely overlooking all the times
>>>> someone has agreed with you in some point, and declaring that that
>>>> everyon has a /personal/ bias against you.
>>>
>>> People on these forums have only agreed with
>>> me at most 1% of the time and the only case
>>
>> 1% is much larger than zero.
>>
>>> besides Ben the agreement was on trivialities.
>>
>> Grasping trivialities is the extent of your skill, so that's
>> all you get.
>>
>
> You are not following the actual reasoning of the
> paper. You leap to the conclusion that I am wrong.
> That is not you pointing out an error.
That's what you did to my code.
I'm categorically rejecting your paper because it
is AI slop that takes /zero/ effort to generate,
but /nonzero/ effort to go through and validate.
AI generation is a denial-of-service attack
on people's attention.
> You don't even know what a cycle in the directed
> graph of the evaluation sequence of an expression
> is so you lack any basis to critique this.
On the contrary, I have designed a lazy evaluating language
feature that detects cycles in evaluation.
Live demo:
Let's start with a good case: z depends on x,
x depends on y, and y is just 42:
1> (mlet ((z (* 2 x))
(y 42)
(x (+ 1 y)))
(list x y z))
(43 42 86)
This mlet (magic let, mutual let) construct lets
you specify mutually dependent variables in any order.
Now, what if y depends on z? Like y = z / 2?
2> (mlet ((z (* 2 x))
(y (/ z 2))
(x (+ 1 y)))
(list x y z))
** expr-1:1: force: recursion forcing delayed form (+ 1 y) (expr-1:3)
The purpose of mlet isn't do to arithmetic formulas in hard-to-follow orders;
it's not that sort of shits and giggles.
What it does is let you instantiate self-referential data structures.
We turn on circle notation to catch structures with shared substructure
including cycles, like circular lists:
1> (set *print-circle* t)
t
Now, this is the wrong way to try to make the infinite circular
list (0 1 0 1 0 ...):
2> (mlet ((x (cons 0 y))
(y (cons 1 x)))
x)
** expr-2:1: force: recursion forcing delayed form (cons 0 y) (expr-2:1)
We need to use the lazy version of cons, the lcons macro, together
with mlet:
2> (mlet ((x (lcons 0 y))
(y (lcons 1 x)))
x)
#1=(0 1 . #1#)
The notation #1=(0 1 . #1#) represents the circular list It
has two nodes 0 and 1, and a final CDR field pointing back to the
first cell.
We can turn off the circle notation and take sublists of the list:
3> (set *print-circle* nil)
nil
4> (mlet ((x (lcons 0 y))
(y (lcons 1 x)))
[x 0..20])
(0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1)
5> (mlet ((x (lcons 0 y))
(y (lcons 1 x)))
[x 0..30])
(0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1)
Self-reference or mutual reference is very useful in lazy computing,
and the construction of both circular structure and lazy structures,
without explicit assignment.
What have you developed other than taking someone else's x86 simulator and
adding a bit of code around it?
--
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 | 2025-11-12 22:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10f3nks$1u2dv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640701 |
On 11/12/2025 9:22 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-13, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/12/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/12/2025 12:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not >>>>>> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong] >>>>>> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this >>>>>> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums. >>>>> >>>>> Your principal modus operandi is that you reject any piece of evidence >>>>> which contradicts your set view in any matter. >>>> >>>> Not at all. Not ever. >>> >>> Even now, in this post. >>> >>>>> Here you are also doing it again: completely overlooking all the times >>>>> someone has agreed with you in some point, and declaring that that >>>>> everyon has a /personal/ bias against you. >>>> >>>> People on these forums have only agreed with >>>> me at most 1% of the time and the only case >>> >>> 1% is much larger than zero. >>> >>>> besides Ben the agreement was on trivialities. >>> >>> Grasping trivialities is the extent of your skill, so that's >>> all you get. >>> >> >> You are not following the actual reasoning of the >> paper. You leap to the conclusion that I am wrong. >> That is not you pointing out an error. > > That's what you did to my code. > Your code essentially claims that infinite recursion stops when you monkey with it. > I'm categorically rejecting your paper because it > is AI slop that takes /zero/ effort to generate, > but /nonzero/ effort to go through and validate. > You cannot show evidence of that. Do you know what a cycle in the directed graph of the evaluation sequence of a formal expression is? Mikko didn't have a clue and claimed that I am wrong anyway. -- 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 | 2025-11-13 08:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251113003331.324@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #640702 |
On 2025-11-13, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/12/2025 9:22 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-13, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/12/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/12/2025 12:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not >>>>>>> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong] >>>>>>> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this >>>>>>> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your principal modus operandi is that you reject any piece of evidence >>>>>> which contradicts your set view in any matter. >>>>> >>>>> Not at all. Not ever. >>>> >>>> Even now, in this post. >>>> >>>>>> Here you are also doing it again: completely overlooking all the times >>>>>> someone has agreed with you in some point, and declaring that that >>>>>> everyon has a /personal/ bias against you. >>>>> >>>>> People on these forums have only agreed with >>>>> me at most 1% of the time and the only case >>>> >>>> 1% is much larger than zero. >>>> >>>>> besides Ben the agreement was on trivialities. >>>> >>>> Grasping trivialities is the extent of your skill, so that's >>>> all you get. >>>> >>> >>> You are not following the actual reasoning of the >>> paper. You leap to the conclusion that I am wrong. >>> That is not you pointing out an error. >> >> That's what you did to my code. >> > > Your code essentially claims that infinite recursion > stops when you monkey with it. You're welcome to point of what exactly you mean by "monkey" and which lines of code are doing that. Which bits am I flipping that constitute monkeying? Remember, the code takes the state of an abandoned simulation /exactly/ as it was left by HHH (or whichever decider) And then it steps that simulation forward in exactly the correct way, the same way that HHH previously stepped it: it passes precisely the correct slave_state, and other arguments, to DebugStep. The code does not manipulate the content of slave_state other than stepping it with DebugStep (your function, the same one used by HHH). Between the time HHH abandoned the simulation, and the new dcode starts stepping it again, nothing has touched slave_state or slave_stack. So again, what is monkeying and where is it happening? You've had several weeks to Back up your claim ... and nothing. -- 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 | 2025-11-13 09:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10f4u2j$287ph$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640711 |
On 11/13/2025 2:44 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-13, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/12/2025 9:22 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-13, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/12/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/12/2025 12:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not >>>>>>>> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong] >>>>>>>> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this >>>>>>>> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your principal modus operandi is that you reject any piece of evidence >>>>>>> which contradicts your set view in any matter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not at all. Not ever. >>>>> >>>>> Even now, in this post. >>>>> >>>>>>> Here you are also doing it again: completely overlooking all the times >>>>>>> someone has agreed with you in some point, and declaring that that >>>>>>> everyon has a /personal/ bias against you. >>>>>> >>>>>> People on these forums have only agreed with >>>>>> me at most 1% of the time and the only case >>>>> >>>>> 1% is much larger than zero. >>>>> >>>>>> besides Ben the agreement was on trivialities. >>>>> >>>>> Grasping trivialities is the extent of your skill, so that's >>>>> all you get. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You are not following the actual reasoning of the >>>> paper. You leap to the conclusion that I am wrong. >>>> That is not you pointing out an error. >>> >>> That's what you did to my code. >>> >> >> Your code essentially claims that infinite recursion >> stops when you monkey with it. > > You're welcome to point of what exactly you mean by "monkey" and which > lines of code are doing that. > Once D simulated by H correctly matches its correct non-halting behavior pattern doing anything besides aborting the simulation and rejecting the input is cheating. > Which bits am I flipping that constitute monkeying? > > Remember, the code takes the state of an abandoned simulation > /exactly/ as it was left by HHH (or whichever decider) > > And then it steps that simulation forward in exactly the correct way, > the same way that HHH previously stepped it: it passes precisely the > correct slave_state, and other arguments, to DebugStep. > > The code does not manipulate the content of slave_state other than > stepping it with DebugStep (your function, the same one used by HHH). > Between the time HHH abandoned the simulation, and the new dcode > starts stepping it again, nothing has touched slave_state or > slave_stack. > > So again, what is monkeying and where is it happening? > > You've had several weeks to Back up your claim ... and nothing. > -- 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 | 2025-11-13 18:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251113103022.598@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #640717 |
On 2025-11-13, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/13/2025 2:44 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> Your code essentially claims that infinite recursion >>> stops when you monkey with it. By the way, it is mostly your code, and someone elses x86utm. >> You're welcome to point of what exactly you mean by "monkey" and which >> lines of code are doing that. > > Once D simulated by H correctly matches its correct > non-halting behavior pattern doing anything besides > aborting the simulation and rejecting the input is cheating. Essentially, as the Crowned King of Halting, you are just /decreeing/ an edict making it illegal to gather evidence as to whether H made the correct decision. Evidence such as looking at the bits H left behind to see whether they really comprise the state of non-terminating simulation. And you think that is how you conduct CS research; like that's how it works in academia? Moreover, you bemoan people who are "closed-minded" and cling to "conventional wisdom" by which they assume you are wrong; yet if those people just accepted arbitrary rules about what they may or may not investigate, to avoid producing results displeasing to the King, then they are fine intellectuals. I don't see what remaining conversation is to be had here. -- 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 | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 00:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10f5rvt$2hh2s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640684 |
On 12/11/2025 17:57, olcott wrote:
> On 11/12/2025 8:45 AM, olcott wrote:
Noisy:
>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
>> is true only because the inner sentence is semantically
>> unsound.
Woah! Because your post provides some meaning for the interpretation of
your paper I think the above needs to be addressed.
We have the name of a sentence "This sentence is not true"
We have a sentence about it:
"This sentence is not true" is true only because the inner sentence is
semantically unsound.
And we have a sentence that is constructed like a lambda expression but
using something a bit like a de bruijn reference turned inside out:
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true only
because the inner sentence is semantically unsound.
but with a noisy surrounding fluff beta-ish-reducing to:
["This sentence is not true" is true only because the inner sentence is
semantically unsound] is not true
in there we still have the foremost interesting
outie-de-bruijn-ish-innie reference "the inner sentence" which I suppose
therein refers to the referent of the unique syntactically most
contained nominal phrase that references a sentence, to wit, the
referent of "This sentence" in "This sentence is not true" in the Noisy.
then the whole says it's not true that some purported semantic
unsoundness of what that reference refers to is the sole basis for
inferring some unstated notion of nontruth about the referent of "This
sentence" in "This sentence is not true" in the Noisy.
Have I understood what you're saying, minister?
[Why "minister", see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVO85anasrA ]
>> The inner sentence is formalized in Minimal
>> Type Theory as LP := ~True(LP).
>> (where A := B means A is defined as B).
I very much doubt that but you filled my head with noise. Does your
Noisy (above) really constrain "This sentence is not true" such that
your MTT formalisation of it is accurate? You should be noiselessly
patient, so I should expect so, but I'd like to read that you think it
was all suitably constraining wordage before I think any further because
I think it's not an accurate formalisation ("encoding").
More pedestrianly: Is := symmetric? ie, does A := B entail B := A and B
:= A entail A := B (in the formation rules of sentences of MTT from
other sentences of MTT)?
>> https://philpapers.org/rec/OLCREO
>>
>> Can someone review my actual reasoning
>> elaborated in the paper?
No: it is an AI chatlog which is shit.
> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not
> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong]
> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this
> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums.
I typically begin "everyone is wrong, but /how/ exactly" until I can't
justify my premise any more. Then I stay quiet until I wake up suddenly
realising someone was particularly right in some small way, then I
begrudgingly ackowledge that publically, and encourage the other wrong
people to find a way to correct my temporary wrong-blindness.
That is on the basis that of all the things that can be said almost none
of them are right with just a few exceptional isolated points dotted around.
--
Tristan Wibberley
The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-13 18:45 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10f5u3v$2i01d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640744 |
On 11/13/2025 6:09 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
> On 12/11/2025 17:57, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/12/2025 8:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>
> Noisy:
>
>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
>>> is true only because the inner sentence is semantically
>>> unsound.
>
> Woah! Because your post provides some meaning for the interpretation of
> your paper I think the above needs to be addressed.
>
> We have the name of a sentence "This sentence is not true"
> We have a sentence about it:
>
> "This sentence is not true" is true only because the inner sentence is
> semantically unsound.
>
> And we have a sentence that is constructed like a lambda expression but
> using something a bit like a de bruijn reference turned inside out:
>
> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true only
> because the inner sentence is semantically unsound.
>
> but with a noisy surrounding fluff beta-ish-reducing to:
>
> ["This sentence is not true" is true only because the inner sentence is
> semantically unsound] is not true
>
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true.
You can't put the quotes in a different place without changing
the semantics.
Here is "This sentence is not true" is semantically
unsound in Prolog:
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
> in there we still have the foremost interesting
> outie-de-bruijn-ish-innie reference "the inner sentence" which I suppose
> therein refers to the referent of the unique syntactically most
> contained nominal phrase that references a sentence, to wit, the
> referent of "This sentence" in "This sentence is not true" in the Noisy.
>
Its an example of not needing a separate object
language and meta-language that Tarski says is
required.
> then the whole says it's not true that some purported semantic
> unsoundness of what that reference refers to is the sole basis for
> inferring some unstated notion of nontruth about the referent of "This
> sentence" in "This sentence is not true" in the Noisy.
>
>
> Have I understood what you're saying, minister?
>
> [Why "minister", see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVO85anasrA ]
>
>
>>> The inner sentence is formalized in Minimal
>>> Type Theory as LP := ~True(LP).
>>> (where A := B means A is defined as B).
>
> I very much doubt that but you filled my head with noise. Does your
> Noisy (above) really constrain "This sentence is not true" such that
> your MTT formalisation of it is accurate? You should be noiselessly
> patient, so I should expect so, but I'd like to read that you think it
> was all suitably constraining wordage before I think any further because
> I think it's not an accurate formalisation ("encoding").
>
>
> More pedestrianly: Is := symmetric? ie, does A := B entail B := A and B
> := A entail A := B (in the formation rules of sentences of MTT from
> other sentences of MTT)?
>
>
>>> https://philpapers.org/rec/OLCREO
>>>
>>> Can someone review my actual reasoning
>>> elaborated in the paper?
>
> No: it is an AI chatlog which is shit.
>
It is all my words and my ideas and Claude AI's
assessment of them. Unlike anyone anywhere else
LLMs do demonstrate the functional equivalent
of deep understanding of the notion of:
cycles in the directed graph of evaluation sequence
of a formal expression
Everyone here says I am wrong I am wrong and I am
wrong never understanding a single word that I said.
>
>
>> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not
>> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong]
>> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this
>> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums.
>
> I typically begin "everyone is wrong, but /how/ exactly" until I can't
> justify my premise any more. Then I stay quiet until I wake up suddenly
> realising someone was particularly right in some small way, then I
> begrudgingly ackowledge that publically, and encourage the other wrong
> people to find a way to correct my temporary wrong-blindness.
>
> That is on the basis that of all the things that can be said almost none
> of them are right with just a few exceptional isolated points dotted around.
>
>
> --
> Tristan Wibberley
>
> The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
> citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
> of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
> verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
> promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
> of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
> superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
> any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
> will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
>
--
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 | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 01:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10f5v3s$2i47m$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640745 |
On 14/11/2025 00:45, olcott wrote: > On 11/13/2025 6:09 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >> On 12/11/2025 17:57, olcott wrote: >>> On 11/12/2025 8:45 AM, olcott wrote: >> >> Noisy: >> >>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" >>>> is true only because the inner sentence is semantically >>>> unsound. >> >> Woah! Because your post provides some meaning for the interpretation of >> your paper I think the above needs to be addressed. >> >> We have the name of a sentence "This sentence is not true" >> We have a sentence about it: >> >> "This sentence is not true" is true only because the inner sentence is >> semantically unsound. >> >> And we have a sentence that is constructed like a lambda expression but >> using something a bit like a de bruijn reference turned inside out: >> >> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true only >> because the inner sentence is semantically unsound. >> >> but with a noisy surrounding fluff beta-ish-reducing to: >> >> ["This sentence is not true" is true only because the inner sentence is >> semantically unsound] is not true >> > > This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true. > You can't put the quotes in a different place without changing > the semantics. You haven't tried to understand what I wrote. You have just guessed at a response. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-13 20:29 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10f6477$2j888$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640746 |
On 11/13/2025 7:02 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 14/11/2025 00:45, olcott wrote: >> On 11/13/2025 6:09 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >>> On 12/11/2025 17:57, olcott wrote: >>>> On 11/12/2025 8:45 AM, olcott wrote: >>> >>> Noisy: >>> >>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" >>>>> is true only because the inner sentence is semantically >>>>> unsound. >>> >>> Woah! Because your post provides some meaning for the interpretation of >>> your paper I think the above needs to be addressed. >>> >>> We have the name of a sentence "This sentence is not true" >>> We have a sentence about it: >>> >>> "This sentence is not true" is true only because the inner sentence is >>> semantically unsound. >>> >>> And we have a sentence that is constructed like a lambda expression but >>> using something a bit like a de bruijn reference turned inside out: >>> >>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true only >>> because the inner sentence is semantically unsound. >>> >>> but with a noisy surrounding fluff beta-ish-reducing to: >>> >>> ["This sentence is not true" is true only because the inner sentence is >>> semantically unsound] is not true >>> >> >> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true. >> You can't put the quotes in a different place without changing >> the semantics. > > You haven't tried to understand what I wrote. You have just guessed at a > response. > This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true is the essence of the Tarski Undefinability theorem. > > -- > Tristan Wibberley > > The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except > citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, > of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it > verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to > promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation > of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general > superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train > any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that > will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements. > -- 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 | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 13:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10f79m8$2re59$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640748 |
On 14/11/2025 02:29, olcott wrote: > This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true > is the essence of the Tarski Undefinability theorem. Once again, you've just guessed at a response instead of trying to understand. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 07:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10f7bk1$2saq2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640759 |
On 11/14/2025 7:09 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 14/11/2025 02:29, olcott wrote: > >> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true >> is the essence of the Tarski Undefinability theorem. > > Once again, you've just guessed at a response instead of trying to > understand. > This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true. It took me four years to simplify Tarski's proof down to that. Here is his actual proof https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf Here is what cancels his proof ?- LP = not(true(LP)). LP = not(true(LP)). ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). false. > > -- > Tristan Wibberley > > The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except > citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, > of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it > verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to > promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation > of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general > superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train > any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that > will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements. > -- 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 | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 01:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10f5vp4$2ibge$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640745 |
On 14/11/2025 00:45, olcott wrote: > ... [is] an example of not needing a separate object > language and meta-language that Tarski says is > required. You've got that unqualified. Did Tarski say it unqualified? -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-13 20:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10f64da$2j888$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640747 |
On 11/13/2025 7:14 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 14/11/2025 00:45, olcott wrote: >> ... [is] an example of not needing a separate object >> language and meta-language that Tarski says is >> required. > > You've got that unqualified. Did Tarski say it unqualified? > To express the entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language only a single language is needed. Tarski disagreed and he was wrong and I showed how and why with my discussion with Claude. > -- > Tristan Wibberley > > The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except > citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, > of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it > verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to > promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation > of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general > superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train > any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that > will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements. > -- 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 | 2025-11-14 10:45 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10f7mak$2vflq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640744 |
On 11/13/2025 6:09 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
> On 12/11/2025 17:57, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/12/2025 8:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>
> Noisy:
>
>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
>>> is true only because the inner sentence is semantically
>>> unsound.
>
> Woah! Because your post provides some meaning for the interpretation of
> your paper I think the above needs to be addressed.
>
> We have the name of a sentence "This sentence is not true"
> We have a sentence about it:
>
> "This sentence is not true" is true only because the inner sentence is
> semantically unsound.
>
> And we have a sentence that is constructed like a lambda expression but
> using something a bit like a de bruijn reference turned inside out:
>
> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true only
> because the inner sentence is semantically unsound.
>
> but with a noisy surrounding fluff beta-ish-reducing to:
>
> ["This sentence is not true" is true only because the inner sentence is
> semantically unsound] is not true
>
This wording is not precisely accurate. People could
get confused and think that not true means false.
In the case of the Liar Paradox not true means semantic
gibberish.
> in there we still have the foremost interesting
> outie-de-bruijn-ish-innie reference "the inner sentence" which I suppose
> therein refers to the referent of the unique syntactically most
> contained nominal phrase that references a sentence, to wit, the
> referent of "This sentence" in "This sentence is not true" in the Noisy.
>
It is not at all noisy. It merely states the key essence.
> then the whole says it's not true that some purported semantic
> unsoundness of what that reference refers to is the sole basis for
> inferring some unstated notion of nontruth about the referent of "This
> sentence" in "This sentence is not true" in the Noisy.
>
It has taken humanity 2000 years and there are
currently zero accepted resolutions.
Saying that the liar paradox is untrue keeps the
confusion going. Saying that it is semantic gibberish
stops the confusion. Saying it this way is not noisy
is the the succinct key essence of its resolution.
>
> Have I understood what you're saying, minister?
>
> [Why "minister", see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVO85anasrA ]
>
>
>>> The inner sentence is formalized in Minimal
>>> Type Theory as LP := ~True(LP).
>>> (where A := B means A is defined as B).
>
> I very much doubt that but you filled my head with noise. Does your
> Noisy (above) really constrain "This sentence is not true" such that
> your MTT formalisation of it is accurate?
It as the Prolog proves the the evaluation is
stuck in an infinite evaluation loop.
LP := ~True(LP)
00 ~ 01
01 True 00 // cycle
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
> You should be noiselessly
> patient, so I should expect so, but I'd like to read that you think it
> was all suitably constraining wordage before I think any further because
> I think it's not an accurate formalisation ("encoding").
>
>
> More pedestrianly: Is := symmetric? ie, does A := B entail B := A and B
> := A entail A := B (in the formation rules of sentences of MTT from
> other sentences of MTT)?
>
>
>>> https://philpapers.org/rec/OLCREO
>>>
>>> Can someone review my actual reasoning
>>> elaborated in the paper?
>
> No: it is an AI chatlog which is shit.
>
You say this without even looking at the conversation
thus your assessment has no basis. If you had a basis
then you could point out specific errors.
LLM systems have become 67-fold smarter in the last
24 months in that the size of their context window
has increased that much.
>
>
>> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not
>> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong]
>> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this
>> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums.
>
> I typically begin "everyone is wrong, but /how/ exactly" until I can't
> justify my premise any more. Then I stay quiet until I wake up suddenly
> realising someone was particularly right in some small way, then I
> begrudgingly ackowledge that publically, and encourage the other wrong
> people to find a way to correct my temporary wrong-blindness.
>
> That is on the basis that of all the things that can be said almost none
> of them are right with just a few exceptional isolated points dotted around.
>
>
> --
> Tristan Wibberley
>
> The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
> citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
> of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
> verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
> promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
> of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
> superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
> any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
> will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
>
--
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 | 2025-11-13 02:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251112181900.291@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #640679 |
On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > https://philpapers.org/rec/OLCREO This garbage doesn't even feign an attempt at hiding that it's a fucking chat session with Claude AI. -- 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 | 2025-11-12 20:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10f3g0k$1s928$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640695 |
On 11/12/2025 8:22 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> https://philpapers.org/rec/OLCREO > > This garbage doesn't even feign an attempt at hiding that it's a fucking > chat session with Claude AI. > Of course I don't. It proves that I am correct, try and find an actual error. I had ChatGPT look at this too. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauerproves
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-13 02:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251112183750.140@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #640697 |
On 2025-11-13, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/12/2025 8:22 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> https://philpapers.org/rec/OLCREO >> >> This garbage doesn't even feign an attempt at hiding that it's a fucking >> chat session with Claude AI. >> > > Of course I don't. It proves that I am > correct, try and find an actual error. No CS academic is going to do anything but swipe left. You will have to do your own thinking and writing if you want to be taken seriously. Not that that's a guarantee (and we've all seen what your own writing looks like). > I had ChatGPT look at this too. Oh well, then, that's an intellectual slam dunk, obviously. -- 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 | 2025-11-12 22:48 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10f3nu7$1u3p9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #640699 |
On 11/12/2025 8:38 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-13, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/12/2025 8:22 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> https://philpapers.org/rec/OLCREO >>> >>> This garbage doesn't even feign an attempt at hiding that it's a fucking >>> chat session with Claude AI. >>> >> >> Of course I don't. It proves that I am >> correct, try and find an actual error. > > No CS academic is going to do anything but swipe left. > > You will have to do your own thinking and writing if you want to be > taken seriously. Not that that's a guarantee (and we've all seen > what your own writing looks like). > >> I had ChatGPT look at this too. > > Oh well, then, that's an intellectual slam dunk, obviously. > Unlike humans LLMs don't reject my reasoning out-of-hand without even looking at it. Unlike humans these newer LLMs can demonstrate the equivalent of deep understanding. Two years ago they acted like they had Alzheimer's if you exceeded their 3000 word limit. They are much smarter now. Do you know what a context window is (without looking it up)? -- 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]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web