Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---MY LEGACY
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2024 08:57:33 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <vhabsv$2jm4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me>
 <e51f21daadd358ef13801c918106c2fdc65a9f6b@i2pn2.org>
 <vghe3p$2gr3p$1@dont-email.me>
 <4cb98b3918d6745f53bb19582b59e786d4af5022@i2pn2.org>
 <vghgar$2h30o$1@dont-email.me>
 <e40629600e317dba47dd3d066d83899fa7b8a7ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vgiq1d$2nkqv$1@dont-email.me>
 <e84328012ce8d1e75b9b569f15f74fde315a0548@i2pn2.org>
 <vgjd2f$2qdc5$1@dont-email.me>
 <4654d9db2fa0906d7ab7a1c6c09139ab0b0110cd@i2pn2.org>
 <vgl7vl$37h38$4@dont-email.me> <vgnph1$3qcpl$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgns0o$3qq7s$1@dont-email.me> <vgsnod$upmp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgt61q$11e5a$3@dont-email.me>
 <4eebe767dc236a7770566fc1593aae14a38cb085@i2pn2.org>
 <vgtbpd$12ji4$1@dont-email.me>
 <49bbc7f6ba667da66bc56c69db049774c066d084@i2pn2.org>
 <vgvmtb$1kbe2$1@dont-email.me> <vh20o5$25r1d$1@dont-email.me>
 <vh3bn2$2e37l$6@dont-email.me> <vh4env$2o2ht$1@dont-email.me>
 <vh62i2$32617$4@dont-email.me> <vh73mm$3bep5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vh8ma6$3l333$3@dont-email.me> <vh9nt4$3ukcd$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2024 15:57:36 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="16729fe49be52c96931729700fb02df3";
	logging-data="85700"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18od1KGOt5NwOs2x1MJsUAm"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yERYGTaPjz6pDlXhpBDfBuFGVpo=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <vh9nt4$3ukcd$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241116-2, 11/16/2024), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5612

On 11/16/2024 3:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-11-15 23:43:02 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 11/15/2024 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-11-14 23:53:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 11/14/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-11-13 23:11:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/13/2024 4:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-11-12 13:58:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/12/2024 1:12 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 11 Nov 2024 10:35:57 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2024 10:25 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:58:02 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2024 4:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-09 14:36:07 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2024 7:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The actual computation itself does involve HHH emulating itself
>>>>>>>>>>>> emulating DDD. To simply pretend that this does not occur seems
>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>> Which is what you are doing: you pretend that DDD calls some 
>>>>>>>>>>> other HHH
>>>>>>>>>>> that doesn’t abort.
>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH does not reach its "return" instruction 
>>>>>>>>>> final halt
>>>>>>>>>> state whether HHH aborts its emulation or not.
>>>>>>>>> When DDD calls a simulator that aborts, that simulator returns 
>>>>>>>>> to DDD,
>>>>>>>>> which then halts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is not the same DDD as the DDD under test.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the DDD under the test is not the same as DDD then the test
>>>>>>> is performed incorrectly and the test result is not valid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The DDD under test IS THE INPUT DDD
>>>>>> IT IS STUPIDLY WRONG-HEADED TO THINK OTHERWISE.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that there is only one DDD but above you said otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is a ridiculously stupid thing to say because we
>>>> already know that DDD emulated by HHH emulates itself
>>>> emulating DDD and DDD emulated by HHH1 *DOES NOT DO THAT*
>>>
>>> You are free to laugh if you think the truth is stupid.
>>
>> This is my life's only legacy that I really want to complete
>> before I die.
> 
> What does that "This" mean?
> 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D 


and my work on generic undecidability showing that:
(⊢ is to be construed as applying truth preserving
  operations to the LHS deriving the RHS)

Incomplete(L) ≡  ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x))
*never has been correct it has always actually been this*
¬TruthBearer(L,x) ≡ ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x))

True(L,x) ≡ Haskell_Curry_Elementary_Theorems(L) □ x
x is a necessary consequence of the expressions of the
language of L that have been stipulated to be true.

False(L,x) ≡ Haskell_Curry_Elementary_Theorems(L) □ ~x
~x is a necessary consequence of the expressions of the
language of L that have been stipulated to be true.

The above provides the basis for LLM AI systems to
distinguish facts from fictions.

That the provability operator has been replaced
with the necessity operator seems to require semantic
relevance. This prevents logic from diverging from
correct reasoning in many different ways such as
the principle of explosion.


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