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 09:55:40 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 171
Message-ID: <vhaf9s$33df$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$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>
 <vhabsv$2jm4$1@dont-email.me>
 <8c06acb7f661e97361ba931f08951660443eacbe@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2024 16:55:41 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="16729fe49be52c96931729700fb02df3";
	logging-data="101807"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Lxms+0oXrVOxd6wz/T5uT"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:T2v+l+OmdC3h2lv7v83hQkBToxM=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <8c06acb7f661e97361ba931f08951660443eacbe@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241116-2, 11/16/2024), Outbound message
Bytes: 9056

On 11/16/2024 9:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/16/24 9:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>> 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
> 
> Which just shows you are a hypocrite, as you don't go to the axioms, or 
> accepted truths of the system.
> 

The axioms of every x86 emulator are the definition
of the semantic of the x86 language only an ignoramus
or a liar would say or imply otherwise.

>>
>> 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.
> 
> Nope, as LLM don't do "Logic", but just pattern matching.
> 

Hence we augment them so that they do more than this.
Once that have an actual basis to distinguish fact from
fiction LLM hallucinations will cease.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2308/2308.04445.pdf

>>
>> 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.
>>
> 
> Which just shows that you don't undetstand that problem.
> 
> Provability is about KNOWLEDGE, we can KNOW something because we have 
> proved it.
> 
> We can not know if something meets "necessity", which allows for an 
> infinite number of steps, unless we can find a finite sequence that we 
> can see.
> 

The purpose the changing to the "necessity" operator is
to mandate semantic relevance.

> There are many classical problem which we know that they must be True or 
> False, as the form of the problem doesn't allow something in between, 
> either it is true for ALL Numbers, or there is a number that it breaks 
> for, or there is a highest number that satisfies something or there 
> isn't, but whose truth hasn't been provable yet, and they might NEVER be 
> actually provable because the ONLY way to establish that truth is to 
> check EVERY POSSIBLE NUMBER out of the infinite set, and that operation 
> is impossible to complete.
> 
> All you are doing is showing that your don't understand the fundamental 
> basics of how logic works, and just blindly assume to your determent 
> that you can just "tweek" some definitions and everything will be the 
> same except you eliminate the "problems" you have.
> 
> The changes you want to make to remove "incompleteness" either remove 
> the concept of Knowledge from your system (as you remove the method to 
> determine what is known) or reduce the power of the system by preventing 
> operations that have been used to establish some of the basic tools used 
> in modern logic.
> 
> But, you just don't understand that, because you don't understand how 
> things work, and thus you whole world becomes inconsistent, which then 
> explodes by the principle of explosion.
> 

I supersede and overrule how things work the same sort of
way that ZFC overruled naive set theory.

A & ~A derives FALSE.
To say that A & ~A derives "the Moon is made from green cheese".
is a psychotic degree of nuts.

When we require semantic relevance of the necessity operator
then A & ~A □ derives nothing at all, not even the empty set.

========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========