On Sat, 2025-11-15 at 21:01 -0600, olcott wrote:It it ridiculously stupid of you to say that
On 11/15/2025 8:55 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/15/2025 8:48 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-16, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
HHH cannot possibly report on the behavior
of its caller because HHH has no way of
knowing what function is calling it.
This means that when the halting problem
requires HHH to report on the behavior of
its caller: DD() that its is requiring
something outside the scope of computation.
That's dumber than the Witch scene in Monty Python and The Holy Grail. >>>>
Yes and now if you could just translate that
mere baseless rhetoric into actual reasoning
with a sound basis.
Not to denigrate you but I think that this
would be totally out of your depth as it
would be for most everyone.
The information that HHH is required to report
on simply is not contained in its input.
The information that HHH is required to report
on simply is not contained in its input.
The information that HHH is required to report
on simply is not contained in its input.
People that have a very shallow understanding of these
things would say that is what undecidable means.
It is you who don't even understand the logical 'if',
On 11/15/2025 10:09 PM, wij wrote:
It is you who don't even understand the logical 'if',It it ridiculously stupid of you to say that
I do not understand logical if.
On 16/11/2025 05:13, olcott wrote:
On 11/15/2025 10:09 PM, wij wrote:
It is you who don't even understand the logical 'if',It it ridiculously stupid of you to say that
I do not understand logical if.
To what does the phrase "logical if" refer?
--
Tristan Wibberley
The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
On 11/16/2025 1:56 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 16/11/2025 05:13, olcott wrote:
On 11/15/2025 10:09 PM, wij wrote:
It is you who don't even understand the logical 'if',It it ridiculously stupid of you to say that
I do not understand logical if.
To what does the phrase "logical if" refer?
p → q is the classic if p then q
On 11/16/2025 1:56 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 16/11/2025 05:13, olcott wrote:
On 11/15/2025 10:09 PM, wij wrote:
It is you who don't even understand the logical 'if',It it ridiculously stupid of you to say that
I do not understand logical if.
To what does the phrase "logical if" refer?
p → q is the classic if p then q
--
Tristan Wibberley
The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
On 17/11/2025 01:02, olcott wrote:
On 11/16/2025 1:56 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 16/11/2025 05:13, olcott wrote:
On 11/15/2025 10:09 PM, wij wrote:
It is you who don't even understand the logical 'if',It it ridiculously stupid of you to say that
I do not understand logical if.
To what does the phrase "logical if" refer?
p → q is the classic if p then q
No.
It's "there exists a construction that converts a proof of p to a
proof of q". That's not logical if. "if" is just a thing teachers say to
mess you up as an alternative to teaching.
--
Tristan Wibberley
The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
On 17/11/2025 01:02, olcott wrote:
On 11/16/2025 1:56 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 16/11/2025 05:13, olcott wrote:
On 11/15/2025 10:09 PM, wij wrote:
It is you who don't even understand the logical 'if',It it ridiculously stupid of you to say that
I do not understand logical if.
To what does the phrase "logical if" refer?
p → q is the classic if p then q
No.
It's "there exists a construction that converts a proof of p to a
proof of q". That's not logical if. "if" is just a thing teachers say to
mess you up as an alternative to teaching.
--
Tristan Wibberley
The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes and now if you could just translate that
mere baseless rhetoric into actual reasoning
with a sound basis.
Remember, you reject actual reasoning with a sound
basis as learned-by-rote conventional wisdom,
which is closed-minded.
Pearls before the swine and all that.
On 2025-11-17, Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote:
On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes and now if you could just translate that
mere baseless rhetoric into actual reasoning
with a sound basis.
Remember, you reject actual reasoning with a sound
basis as learned-by-rote conventional wisdom,
which is closed-minded.
I mean, you've already rejected the actual with-a-sound-basis reasoning
of Turing, Gödel, ...
What is anyone here going to do where those two failed?
What you are asking for is some other kind of unspecified mode
of reasoning.
Your measure for whether that reasoning is happening is the degree to
which someone regurgitates your ideas without a shred of justification
(i.e. exactly as they were received).
Olcott Lights Out: 14 days ...
On 17/11/2025 18:16, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-17, Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote:
On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes and now if you could just translate that
mere baseless rhetoric into actual reasoning
with a sound basis.
Remember, you reject actual reasoning with a sound
basis as learned-by-rote conventional wisdom,
which is closed-minded.
I mean, you've already rejected the actual with-a-sound-basis reasoning
of Turing, Gödel, ...
What is the reasoning that concludes that the reasonings of Turing and
of Goedel have a sound basis and does /that/ reasoning also have a sound basis?
On 17/11/2025 18:16, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-17, Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote:
On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes and now if you could just translate that
mere baseless rhetoric into actual reasoning
with a sound basis.
Remember, you reject actual reasoning with a sound
basis as learned-by-rote conventional wisdom,
which is closed-minded.
I mean, you've already rejected the actual with-a-sound-basis reasoning
of Turing, Gödel, ...
What is the reasoning that concludes that the reasonings of Turing and
of Goedel have a sound basis and does /that/ reasoning also have a sound basis?
Or is it merely an axiom that their reasoning has a sound basis, like Olcott's definitional proposition turned out to be?
This problem never ends and the beat goes on, and the beat goes on...
--
Tristan Wibberley
The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
On 11/17/2025 12:06 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes and now if you could just translate that
mere baseless rhetoric into actual reasoning
with a sound basis.
Remember, you reject actual reasoning with a sound
basis as learned-by-rote conventional wisdom,
which is closed-minded.
Pearls before the swine and all that.
When it is repeatedly ignored that conventional
wisdom does not begin with a sound basis and it
is utterly insisted that this basis never be
examined then we have
"reckless disregard for the truth".
Until you show the correct execution traces proving
that DD simulated by HHH is the same as DD simulated
by HHH1 you are still showing a
"reckless disregard for the truth".
On 2025-11-17, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/17/2025 4:24 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 17/11/2025 21:28, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
Turing didn't just say, "believe me when I say that halting is
undecidable, because I have given it years of thought, and
cannot see it any other way --- and I am smarter than all of you".
Olcott /has/ been told to stop enquiring on that basis which is when I
interjected about doctrine.
Make sure that you do not examine the foundational
assumptions of computation because almost no one
here even knows what the term [foundational assumptions]
even means and this is too embarrassing for them.
You do, of course! Why the foundational assumptions of computation
are things like EAX and EIP registers of the 32 bit x86 processor.
You've noted in the past that x86 is over the heads of almost
everyone in CS academia.
That's also why they are wrong about halting.
They just can't follow simple machine language which knocks
it all down.
On 11/16/2025 8:21 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 17/11/2025 01:02, olcott wrote:
On 11/16/2025 1:56 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 16/11/2025 05:13, olcott wrote:
On 11/15/2025 10:09 PM, wij wrote:
It is you who don't even understand the logical 'if',It it ridiculously stupid of you to say that
I do not understand logical if.
To what does the phrase "logical if" refer?
p → q is the classic if p then q
No.
Yes: https://math.hawaii.edu/~ramsey/Logic/IfThen.html
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,090 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 158:12:47 |
| Calls: | 13,922 |
| Files: | 187,021 |
| D/L today: |
221 files (58,560K bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,457,273 |