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 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: References: <4cb98b3918d6745f53bb19582b59e786d4af5022@i2pn2.org> <4654d9db2fa0906d7ab7a1c6c09139ab0b0110cd@i2pn2.org> <4eebe767dc236a7770566fc1593aae14a38cb085@i2pn2.org> <49bbc7f6ba667da66bc56c69db049774c066d084@i2pn2.org> <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 ==========