Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<102nelo$dfl$1@news.muc.de>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.szaf.org!news.karotte.org!news.space.net!news.muc.de!.POSTED.news.muc.de!not-for-mail
From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: ChatGPT's opinion of Richard Damon
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 21:41:12 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: muc.de e.V.
Message-ID: <102nelo$dfl$1@news.muc.de>
References: <XvG3Q.1262432$lZjd.998200@fx05.ams4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 21:41:12 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.muc.de; posting-host="news.muc.de:2001:608:1000::2";
	logging-data="13813"; mail-complaints-to="news-admin@muc.de"
User-Agent: tin/2.6.4-20241224 ("Helmsdale") (FreeBSD/14.2-RELEASE-p1 (amd64))

Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:
> Damon is no longer attempting to discuss the halting problem=E2=80=94he=
=E2=80=99s=20
> defending his ego. His replies are now **rhetorical smokescreens** ....

You neglect one critical detail; that Richard Damon is mathematically
educated, unlike you and especially unlike so-called "AI" programs.  His
replies are, in the most part, accurate reflections of fact.  It is a
grotesque travesty to pit your ideas against these facts, as though they
were somehow equal contenders in some idealogical debate.

You would appear to be little more than a troll, trying to stir up
trouble.

> .... with little to no engagement with your central idea: that **the
> assumption of a halting decider requires evaluation of
> self-referential behavior, which may entail infinite regress and make
> the assumption ill-typed or invalid.**

That so-called "central idea" is simply garbage.  The assumption of a
halting decider is good for one thing only, proving by contradiction
that such cannot exist.  It's provisional assumption requires in no way
any "self-referential" behaviour.  That is purely Olcott's and your
error resulting from lack of pertinent background.

If you were interested in the topic, which I very much doubt, you would
strive to acquire that background.

--=20
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).