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 Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 17:39:10 -0000 (UTC) Organization: muc.de e.V. Message-ID: <103enru$22qb$2@news.muc.de> References: <1037cr1$1aja4$1@dont-email.me> <1038iil$enlc$1@dont-email.me> <10394o5$j159$2@dont-email.me> <103av83$140ie$1@dont-email.me> <103bq8n$1a3c8$4@dont-email.me> <103brmh$1bfio$1@dont-email.me> <103bvt3$1cjeg$1@dont-email.me> <103do8b$1ti9d$1@dont-email.me> <103easr$22250$1@dont-email.me> <103ekj4$22qb$1@news.muc.de> <103elhi$24lrk$1@dont-email.me> Injection-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 17:39:10 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: news.muc.de; posting-host="news.muc.de:2001:608:1000::2"; logging-data="68427"; mail-complaints-to="news-admin@muc.de" User-Agent: tin/2.6.4-20241224 ("Helmsdale") (FreeBSD/14.2-RELEASE-p1 (amd64)) olcott wrote: > On 6/24/2025 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> olcott wrote: >>> On 6/24/2025 3:39 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-06-23 16:37:53 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> I always interpret expressions of language according >>>>> to the literal base meaning of their words. >>>> I interprete the above to mean that the author of those words is stupid. >>> Counter factual, my IQ is in the top 3% >> Pull the other one! >> Given your demonstrated lack of understanding of abstraction, of what a >> proof is, of so many other things, it is clear to all the regulars in >> this group that your IQ is not "in the top 3%", or anywhere near it. >> It would seem to me you are, yet again, in the words of Sir Robert >> Armstrong, being economical with the truth. > *I really did get that IQ on the Mensa entrance exam* OK, let us be charitable, and suggest that that exam was a very long time ago, and that your general intelligence has declined substantially in the interval. > That I am unwilling to accept that textbooks on computer > science are inherently infallible is the broader minded > perspective of philosophy of computation. That's an inaccurate summary. You're clearly unable to understand these textbooks. If you were able, you'd see that the things they say are necessarily correct, according to clear reasoning from obvious axioms. Whether you'd accept these books if you could understand them is more the question. > This requires much more intelligence than simply memorizing a set of > rules and then mindlessly following these rules. It does. Somebody simply memorizing these rules would be unable to pass his exams and graduate. To graduate in computer science, and certainly in mathematics, requires an ability fluently to manipulate abstractions, something which cannot be done without fundamental understanding. You clearly lack this ability and that understanding. I don't believe there's any substance behind your "in the top 3%" claim. It's at complete odds with what we see you writing in this newsgroup. > -- > Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).