Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Every computable function can be construed as --- finite string
 transformation rules applied to finite strings.
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2024 08:33:03 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <vfir2f$3ner2$5@dont-email.me>
References: <vf3eu5$fbb3$2@dont-email.me> <vf74oh$1a8oo$1@dont-email.me>
 <525ed75662589a150afa1ea268b199a166a7b98b@i2pn2.org>
 <vf8ads$1gkf5$1@dont-email.me>
 <13583474d25855e665daa98d91605e958f5cf472@i2pn2.org>
 <vf8i1g$1h5mj$4@dont-email.me>
 <45ea7a6da46453c9da62c1149fa1cf7739218c5f@i2pn2.org>
 <vf9qai$1scol$1@dont-email.me>
 <2a210ab064b3a8c3397600b4fe87aa390868bb12@i2pn2.org>
 <vf9sk6$1sfva$2@dont-email.me>
 <4c67570b4898e14665bde2dfdf473130b89b7dd4@i2pn2.org>
 <vfaqe7$21k64$1@dont-email.me>
 <f789d3ef27e3000f04feb3df4fc561c5da02381f@i2pn2.org>
 <vfc96p$2b6h0$1@dont-email.me>
 <74edcca800e7af74169cea47cb8f1715d3a5145f@i2pn2.org>
 <vfdihe$2kvn4$2@dont-email.me>
 <4abd6615b2730699ecc474d01b97163917e0b01d@i2pn2.org>
 <vfeqbs$2rugm$1@dont-email.me>
 <d7e366b37fa336944a72bb41a0e655076b6b335f@i2pn2.org>
 <vfg82q$36im7$4@dont-email.me>
 <0911038494da3f0613bcc3f31271820baa79a0b2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfh522$3bkkv$3@dont-email.me>
 <dd74abb909f08d16e7707ecbdc52acd9d5a5a575@i2pn2.org>
 <vfiqf7$3ner2$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2024 15:33:04 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f00999e9e0e5447cf99e873d021c7ec9";
	logging-data="3914594"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18rEEPNCiOjLHJwzsCofH4S"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZvDAyj3J8PxwvLkTXmR1//GeJuQ=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241026-2, 10/26/2024), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vfiqf7$3ner2$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6104

On 10/26/2024 8:22 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/25/2024 11:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/25/24 6:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/25/2024 10:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/25/24 9:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/25/2024 7:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/24/24 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/24/2024 6:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/24/24 9:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/23/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/23/24 9:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> ChatGPT does completely understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But, it is just a stupid idiot that has been taught to repeat 
>>>>>>>>>> what it has been told.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is a brilliant genius that seems to infallibly deduce all
>>>>>>>>> of the subtle nuances of each of the consequences on the basis
>>>>>>>>> of a set of premises.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess you don't undetstand how "Large Language Models work, do 
>>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It has NO actual intelegence, or ability to "deduce" nuances, it 
>>>>>>>> is just a massive pattern matching system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All you are doing is proving how little you understand about 
>>>>>>>> what you are talking about,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Remember, at the bottom of the page is a WARNING that it can 
>>>>>>>> make mistakes. And feeding it LIES, like you do is one easy way 
>>>>>>>> to do that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is much more to this than your superficial
>>>>>>> understanding.  Here is a glimpse:
>>>>>>> https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/03/04/1089403/large- 
>>>>>>> language- models-amazing-but-nobody-knows-why/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The bottom line is that ChatGPT made no error in its
>>>>>>> evaluation of my work when this evaluation is based on
>>>>>>> pure reasoning. It is only when my work is measured
>>>>>>> against arbitrary dogma that cannot be justified with
>>>>>>> pure reasoning that makes me and ChatGPT seem incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If use your same approach to these things we could say that
>>>>>>> ZFC stupidly fails to have a glimmering of understanding of
>>>>>>> Naive set theory. From your perspective ZFC is a damned liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The articles says no such thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *large-language-models-amazing-but-nobody-knows-why*
>>>>> They are much smarter and can figure out all kinds of
>>>>> things. Their original designers have no idea how they
>>>>> do this.
>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact, it comments about the problem of "overfitting" where the 
>>>>>> processing get the wrong answers because it over generalizes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is because the modeling process has no concept of actual 
>>>>>> meaning, and thus of truth, only the patterns that it has seen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AI's don't "Reason", they patern match and compare.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, that "arbitrary dogma" that you try to reject, are the RULES 
>>>>>> and DEFINITONS of the system that you claim to be working in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How about we stipulate that the system that I am
>>>>> working in is termination analysis for the x86 language.
>>>>> as my system software says in its own name: x86utm.
>>>>
>>>> But it doesn;t actually know
>>>>
>>>
>>> I said the the underlying formal mathematical system
>>> of DDD/HHH <is> the x86 language.
>>
>> Can't be.
>>
>> That isn't a formal logic system.
>>
> 
> Sure it is. A formal logic system is any system
> tat applies finite string transformation rules
> to finite strings.
> 
> The simplest concrete example of such a system
> transforms pairs of ASCII digits into their sum.
> 

Every computable function can be construed as applying
finite string transformation rules to an input finite
string and deriving an output finite string.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer