Hi,
Well then get an education. Every Gödel
sentence G, has a size, doesn't it?
The formal analogue of the Liar Paradox,
except it’s expressed arithmetically:
G ≡ ∀y¬Proof(y,┌G┐).
Gödel did explicitly construct a Gödel
sentence G in his 1931 paper. He did not
claim it was astronomically large,
nor impossible to write. Now you can do
the encoded Liar also with Turing Machines TM:
1. Fix a formal proof system S (e.g. PA) and
an effective enumeration of all proofs.
2. Build a TM M(x) that, given a code x, searches
for an S-proof of the formula with code a; if it finds
M(x) halts <=> exists y Proof(y,x) (i.e. Prov(x)).
Etc.. etc..
Bye
dart200 schrieb:
this shit makes me feel like i'm stuck in a mad house planet
undecidability has nothing to do with computational complexity and the fact we think the limit to decidability is bounded by how well we can bit pack a self-referential turing machine into a proof is just literal nonsense
TL;DR: There is no such thing as an irrational reasoner,
i.e. not any more than there exists a married bachelor.
[ Original subject: "daily puzzle: the rational reasoner".
Salvaged from the Google Groups archive.]
On November 19 2023, Rich D wrote:
On November 15 2023, Jeff Barnett wrote:
A rational person believes a finite number of propositions;
that is, he believes all of them they are true. (if he thought
any one was false, he'd disbelieve it)
A rational person also disbelieves in his own perfection.
He expects to be wrong occasionally.
This implies that one of the list of the propositions
referenced above, must be false. And he's aware of this
implication. Which means he believes he believes
something false.
Is this inconsistent? Is he rational? Explain.
Yes, it/he is: to begin with because incorrect is not
the same as incongruous ("inconsistent", though that
is more of a mathematical term). Moreover, we indeed
do hypothetical thinking, which means thinking with the
(meta-)knowledge that not (and not ever) all (domain)
knowledge is accurate and available. And so much more,
we do...
Rational does not imply perfection in thought.
I would not define rational as equivalent to perfection.
In order to discuss the concept, one must first define the concept.
You seem, above, to float a definition of a rational person then
move on to ask a question given your definition.
Define rational person: he attempts to avoid contradiction,
he doesn't knowingly accept any contradiction. He utilizes
the precepts of first order logic.
No, he doesn't (or, shouldn't) use "FOL". To begin with,
do not conflate Logic proper (valid reasoning) with formal
and/or mathematical logic, not to even mention the unbounded
complexity of the real world. At best Logic proper goes with
symbolic logic, whatever that even means...
He attempts to recognize facts and reality,
assuming his perceptions of reality are accurate.
Again, a rational thinker would never assume full
and fully accurate knowledge.
He notices that no one is perfect. By induction, he presumes
himself to be imperfect; that is, he's occasionally wrong. Which
means one of his accepted propositions must be false.
Yes, "(he very well knows that) he may be wrong", put simply.
Therefore, he is aware that he believes a false proposition.
Hence is inconsistent. Knowingly.
A modest man must therefore be inconsistent, unavoidably.
It ain't about "modesty", it's a matter of "finiteness",
and, to reiterate, it ain't about consistency either, a
_rational_ (hu)man *is* "consistent", in so far as s/he is
being rational, for what rational even means.
classIf the definition was of a abstract system (e.g., something in the
defined, notof Turing machines) you could ask if such a system could be
whether it is consistent.
You could frame the original question in regard to an abstract
system, it wouldn't change anything pertinent.
Here's a workaround: call on information theory. Assign b bits
of information to each correct proposition. Then recognize that
some of those are false, and strive to maximize the total
information. Don't sweat the small stuff, I always say -
Sure, and we already do that, a logic of confidence instead of one
of certainty: by the lenses of an information-theoretic approach... <https://gist.github.com/jp-diegidio/72e4df22b92e9427e265>
(so to speak).
But often there is more and better we can do than just "averaging"
"from the past": but indeed, contra widespread belief, inductive
reasoning is *not* probabilistic reasoning, it's not even reasoning
strictly speaking (P.F. Strawson, Introduction to Logical Theory),
it's rather *a premise to any reasoning and reasonability*.
And here is an evergreen for the broader context:
D.C. Williams, The Evils of Inductive Skepticism. <https://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/williams.pdf>
Julio
Hi,
Well then get an education. Every Gödel
sentence G, has a size, doesn't it?
The formal analogue of the Liar Paradox,
except it’s expressed arithmetically:
G ≡ ∀y¬Proof(y,┌G┐).
Gödel did explicitly construct a Gödel
sentence G in his 1931 paper. He did not
claim it was astronomically large,
nor impossible to write. Now you can do
the encoded Liar also with Turing Machines TM:
1. Fix a formal proof system S (e.g. PA) and
an effective enumeration of all proofs.
2. Build a TM M(x) that, given a code x, searches
for an S-proof of the formula with code a; if it finds
M(x) halts <=> exists y Proof(y,x) (i.e. Prov(x)).
Etc.. etc..
Bye--
dart200 schrieb:
this shit makes me feel like i'm stuck in a mad house planet
undecidability has nothing to do with computational complexity and the
fact we think the limit to decidability is bounded by how well we can
bit pack a self-referential turing machine into a proof is just
literal nonsense
On 12/2/25 11:55 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
Hi,
Well then get an education. Every Gödel
sentence G, has a size, doesn't it?
The formal analogue of the Liar Paradox,
except it’s expressed arithmetically:
G ≡ ∀y¬Proof(y,┌G┐).
Gödel did explicitly construct a Gödel
sentence G in his 1931 paper. He did not
claim it was astronomically large,
nor impossible to write. Now you can do
the encoded Liar also with Turing Machines TM:
1. Fix a formal proof system S (e.g. PA) and
an effective enumeration of all proofs.
2. Build a TM M(x) that, given a code x, searches
for an S-proof of the formula with code a; if it finds
M(x) halts <=> exists y Proof(y,x) (i.e. Prov(x)).
Etc.. etc..
bruh, that has literally nothing to do with fuck all basically, it's seriously a non-sequitur response predicated on a what... decades long category error???
see, generally speaking (as in *all* of them): proofs of undecidability involve proving some hypothetical machine to be undecidable/uncomputable that then supposedly *does not exist*, like the M(x) that ur describing ...
the problem is: none of the machines expressed by the N-state machine permutations, of where BusyBeaver(N) is the longest finite step count,
could be one of the hypothesized undecidable/uncomputable machines as
such a machine *does not exist*
so what does it even mean for a BB(N) computation to be undecidable/ uncomputable??? you say that at some limit L, BB(L) becomes
"uncomputable" because godel blah blah blah but forget that godel
nonsense for a sec. consider the naive, infinite-tape computation being
done in BB here:
all BB(L) naively does with infinite tape (and unbounded time) is
iterate over all permutations of L-state machines, testing each one for halting/step count, and then returning whatever is the max of that enumeration. if it can't do that, then were could the "undecidability"
have occurred? certainly finding the max over a list of finite step
counts isn't the problem, so the only other problem possible is
encountering some *real* machine U which then cannot be decided upon ...
but like what could even be that *real* machine U which is supposedly undecidable??? all the hypothesized "machines" proven undecidable are claimed to then not exist!!! those hypothetically undecidable machine
cannot then come up while enumerating out *real* L-state
permutations ... so it actually makes zero sense to say there is a
provable limit to the BB function
so like yeah, what in the fuck is going on there godel-bros???
Bye
dart200 schrieb:
this shit makes me feel like i'm stuck in a mad house planet
undecidability has nothing to do with computational complexity and
the fact we think the limit to decidability is bounded by how well we
can bit pack a self-referential turing machine into a proof is just
literal nonsense
On 30/11/2025 22:21, Mild Shock wrote:
In the coming age of analog computing,
symbolic logic means nothing:
"In the coming age of analog computing" is a counter factual,
but if it did mean anything, it would mean the exact opposite
...
Sure. Get the fuck out of here, you and your employer.
*Plonk*
Julio
On 12/3/25 2:02 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 12/2/25 11:55 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
Hi,
Well then get an education. Every Gödel
sentence G, has a size, doesn't it?
The formal analogue of the Liar Paradox,
except it’s expressed arithmetically:
G ≡ ∀y¬Proof(y,┌G┐).
Gödel did explicitly construct a Gödel
sentence G in his 1931 paper. He did not
claim it was astronomically large,
nor impossible to write. Now you can do
the encoded Liar also with Turing Machines TM:
1. Fix a formal proof system S (e.g. PA) and
an effective enumeration of all proofs.
2. Build a TM M(x) that, given a code x, searches
for an S-proof of the formula with code a; if it finds
M(x) halts <=> exists y Proof(y,x) (i.e. Prov(x)).
Etc.. etc..
bruh, that has literally nothing to do with fuck all basically, it's
seriously a non-sequitur response predicated on a what... decades long
category error???
see, generally speaking (as in *all* of them): proofs of
undecidability involve proving some hypothetical machine to be
undecidable/uncomputable that then supposedly *does not exist*, like
the M(x) that ur describing ...
the problem is: none of the machines expressed by the N-state machine
permutations, of where BusyBeaver(N) is the longest finite step count,
could be one of the hypothesized undecidable/uncomputable machines as
such a machine *does not exist*
so what does it even mean for a BB(N) computation to be undecidable/
uncomputable??? you say that at some limit L, BB(L) becomes
"uncomputable" because godel blah blah blah but forget that godel
nonsense for a sec. consider the naive, infinite-tape computation
being done in BB here:
all BB(L) naively does with infinite tape (and unbounded time) is
sorry meant unbounded tape and unbounded time ofc
iterate over all permutations of L-state machines, testing each one
for halting/step count, and then returning whatever is the max of that
enumeration. if it can't do that, then were could the "undecidability"
have occurred? certainly finding the max over a list of finite step
counts isn't the problem, so the only other problem possible is
encountering some *real* machine U which then cannot be decided upon ...
but like what could even be that *real* machine U which is supposedly
undecidable??? all the hypothesized "machines" proven undecidable are
claimed to then not exist!!! those hypothetically undecidable machine
cannot then come up while enumerating out *real* L-state permutations
... so it actually makes zero sense to say there is a provable limit
to the BB function
so like yeah, what in the fuck is going on there godel-bros???
Bye
dart200 schrieb:
this shit makes me feel like i'm stuck in a mad house planet
undecidability has nothing to do with computational complexity and
the fact we think the limit to decidability is bounded by how well
we can bit pack a self-referential turing machine into a proof is
just literal nonsense
godel-bros be coping hard
#god
Hi,
You sure your name is not fart300 ? You
sound like an imbecil 5 year old moron.
"undecidability" kicks only in for
machines, that are not provable terminating.
Everything that is outside PRA showing
a function is total. BB(5) seems to be still
inside PRA total, otherwise a Coq proof seems
unlikely. But a Coq proof was published:
Determination of the fifth Busy Beaver value
https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.12337
Which is basically a glorified:
47,176,870 4098 current BB(5), step champion https://turbotm.de/~heiner/BB/mabu90.html
Filling some holes, because I think mabu had
also a heuristic, that simply ignored very long
runners, by applying a threshold. These are undecided.
But judge from the Coq approach, everything
can be made decided inside BB(5).
Bye
dart200 schrieb:
On 12/3/25 2:02 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 12/2/25 11:55 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
Hi,
Well then get an education. Every Gödel
sentence G, has a size, doesn't it?
The formal analogue of the Liar Paradox,
except it’s expressed arithmetically:
G ≡ ∀y¬Proof(y,┌G┐).
Gödel did explicitly construct a Gödel
sentence G in his 1931 paper. He did not
claim it was astronomically large,
nor impossible to write. Now you can do
the encoded Liar also with Turing Machines TM:
1. Fix a formal proof system S (e.g. PA) and
an effective enumeration of all proofs.
2. Build a TM M(x) that, given a code x, searches
for an S-proof of the formula with code a; if it finds
M(x) halts <=> exists y Proof(y,x) (i.e. Prov(x)).
Etc.. etc..
bruh, that has literally nothing to do with fuck all basically, it's
seriously a non-sequitur response predicated on a what... decades
long category error???
see, generally speaking (as in *all* of them): proofs of
undecidability involve proving some hypothetical machine to be
undecidable/uncomputable that then supposedly *does not exist*, like
the M(x) that ur describing ...
the problem is: none of the machines expressed by the N-state machine
permutations, of where BusyBeaver(N) is the longest finite step
count, could be one of the hypothesized undecidable/uncomputable
machines as such a machine *does not exist*
so what does it even mean for a BB(N) computation to be undecidable/
uncomputable??? you say that at some limit L, BB(L) becomes
"uncomputable" because godel blah blah blah but forget that godel
nonsense for a sec. consider the naive, infinite-tape computation
being done in BB here:
all BB(L) naively does with infinite tape (and unbounded time) is
sorry meant unbounded tape and unbounded time ofc
iterate over all permutations of L-state machines, testing each one
for halting/step count, and then returning whatever is the max of
that enumeration. if it can't do that, then were could the
"undecidability" have occurred? certainly finding the max over a list
of finite step counts isn't the problem, so the only other problem
possible is encountering some *real* machine U which then cannot be
decided upon ...
but like what could even be that *real* machine U which is supposedly
undecidable??? all the hypothesized "machines" proven undecidable are
claimed to then not exist!!! those hypothetically undecidable machine
cannot then come up while enumerating out *real* L-state
permutations ... so it actually makes zero sense to say there is a
provable limit to the BB function
so like yeah, what in the fuck is going on there godel-bros???
Bye
dart200 schrieb:
this shit makes me feel like i'm stuck in a mad house planet
undecidability has nothing to do with computational complexity and
the fact we think the limit to decidability is bounded by how well
we can bit pack a self-referential turing machine into a proof is
just literal nonsense
nah ur just willfully ignoring ur bullshit:
if you claim halting to not be generally decidable ... then there must
exist some *real* machine who's halting cannot be decided upon,
demonstrably so (if such a machine does not exist, then halting must be generally decidable)
but that's fucking retarded: such "undecidable" machines are pure hypothesis, and cannot actually exist, so therefor all machines that actually exist must be decidable
the BB(N) function compute the max finite step count for all N-state
machine permutations, all of which are machines that actually exist,
none of which can be undecidable ...
so it cannot make sense to claim BB(N) as undecidable at some limit L, because that would imply some L-state machine to be undecidable, which cannot actually be true
godel-bros be coping hard
#god
On 12/3/25 3:15 AM, Mild Shock wrote:
Hi,
You sure your name is not fart300 ? You
sound like an imbecil 5 year old moron.
"undecidability" kicks only in for
machines, that are not provable terminating.
Everything that is outside PRA showing
a function is total. BB(5) seems to be still
inside PRA total, otherwise a Coq proof seems
unlikely. But a Coq proof was published:
Determination of the fifth Busy Beaver value
https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.12337
Which is basically a glorified:
47,176,870 4098 current BB(5), step champion
https://turbotm.de/~heiner/BB/mabu90.html
Filling some holes, because I think mabu had
also a heuristic, that simply ignored very long
runners, by applying a threshold. These are undecided.
But judge from the Coq approach, everything
can be made decided inside BB(5).
Bye
dart200 schrieb:
On 12/3/25 2:02 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 12/2/25 11:55 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
Hi,
Well then get an education. Every Gödel
sentence G, has a size, doesn't it?
The formal analogue of the Liar Paradox,
except it’s expressed arithmetically:
G ≡ ∀y¬Proof(y,┌G┐).
Gödel did explicitly construct a Gödel
sentence G in his 1931 paper. He did not
claim it was astronomically large,
nor impossible to write. Now you can do
the encoded Liar also with Turing Machines TM:
1. Fix a formal proof system S (e.g. PA) and
an effective enumeration of all proofs.
2. Build a TM M(x) that, given a code x, searches
for an S-proof of the formula with code a; if it finds
M(x) halts <=> exists y Proof(y,x) (i.e. Prov(x)).
Etc.. etc..
bruh, that has literally nothing to do with fuck all basically, it's
seriously a non-sequitur response predicated on a what... decades
long category error???
see, generally speaking (as in *all* of them): proofs of
undecidability involve proving some hypothetical machine to be
undecidable/uncomputable that then supposedly *does not exist*, like
the M(x) that ur describing ...
the problem is: none of the machines expressed by the N-state
machine permutations, of where BusyBeaver(N) is the longest finite
step count, could be one of the hypothesized undecidable/
uncomputable machines as such a machine *does not exist*
so what does it even mean for a BB(N) computation to be undecidable/
uncomputable??? you say that at some limit L, BB(L) becomes
"uncomputable" because godel blah blah blah but forget that godel
nonsense for a sec. consider the naive, infinite-tape computation
being done in BB here:
all BB(L) naively does with infinite tape (and unbounded time) is
sorry meant unbounded tape and unbounded time ofc
iterate over all permutations of L-state machines, testing each one
for halting/step count, and then returning whatever is the max of
that enumeration. if it can't do that, then were could the
"undecidability" have occurred? certainly finding the max over a
list of finite step counts isn't the problem, so the only other
problem possible is encountering some *real* machine U which then
cannot be decided upon ...
but like what could even be that *real* machine U which is
supposedly undecidable??? all the hypothesized "machines" proven
undecidable are claimed to then not exist!!! those hypothetically
undecidable machine cannot then come up while enumerating out *real*
L-state permutations ... so it actually makes zero sense to say
there is a provable limit to the BB function
so like yeah, what in the fuck is going on there godel-bros???
Bye
dart200 schrieb:
this shit makes me feel like i'm stuck in a mad house planet
undecidability has nothing to do with computational complexity and >>>>>> the fact we think the limit to decidability is bounded by how well >>>>>> we can bit pack a self-referential turing machine into a proof is >>>>>> just literal nonsense
nah ur just willfully ignoring ur bullshit:
if you claim halting to not be generally decidable ... then there must
exist some *real* machine who's halting cannot be decided upon,
demonstrably so (if such a machine does not exist, then halting must be generally decidable)
but that's fucking retarded: such "undecidable" machines are pure hypothesis, and cannot actually exist, so therefor all machines that actually exist must be decidable
the BB(N) function compute the max finite step count for all N-state
machine permutations, all of which are machines that actually exist,
none of which can be undecidable ...
so it cannot make sense to claim BB(N) as undecidable at some limit L, because that would imply some L-state machine to be undecidable, which cannot actually be true
godel-bros be coping hard
#god
On 12/3/2025 8:50 AM, dart200 wrote:
nah ur just willfully ignoring ur bullshit:To the guy that invented the zero: thanks for nothing.
You are starting to sound paranoid. Are you heading into a mid-life
crises? If you think you are, there may be help for you.
Obviously it's a mental condition: Sleepless nights. Nerves. Sudden outbursts, cursing at inanimate objects. Grouchy. Calling out strangers
in chat rooms. Diminished appetite, except for spicy foods.
Godel also developed a severe case of paranoia. He thought he was being poisoned so he refused to eat and slowly starved himself to death. Which
is not logical.
Apparently, he never figured out what was going on. Go figure.
--if you claim halting to not be generally decidable ... then there must
exist some *real* machine who's halting cannot be decided upon,
demonstrably so (if such a machine does not exist, then halting must
be generally decidable)
but that's fucking retarded: such "undecidable" machines are pure
hypothesis, and cannot actually exist, so therefor all machines that
actually exist must be decidable
the BB(N) function compute the max finite step count for all N-state
machine permutations, all of which are machines that actually exist,
none of which can be undecidable ...
so it cannot make sense to claim BB(N) as undecidable at some limit L,
because that would imply some L-state machine to be undecidable, which
cannot actually be true
godel-bros be coping hard
;
#god
On 12/3/2025 8:50 AM, dart200 wrote:
nah ur just willfully ignoring ur bullshit:To the guy that invented the zero: thanks for nothing.
You are starting to sound paranoid. Are you heading into a mid-life
crises? If you think you are, there may be help for you.
Obviously it's a mental condition: Sleepless nights. Nerves. Sudden outbursts, cursing at inanimate objects. Grouchy. Calling out strangers
in chat rooms. Diminished appetite, except for spicy foods.
Godel also developed a severe case of paranoia. He thought he was being poisoned so he refused to eat and slowly starved himself to death. Which
is not logical.
Apparently, he never figured out what was going on. Go figure.
--if you claim halting to not be generally decidable ... then there must
exist some *real* machine who's halting cannot be decided upon,
demonstrably so (if such a machine does not exist, then halting must
be generally decidable)
but that's fucking retarded: such "undecidable" machines are pure
hypothesis, and cannot actually exist, so therefor all machines that
actually exist must be decidable
the BB(N) function compute the max finite step count for all N-state
machine permutations, all of which are machines that actually exist,
none of which can be undecidable ...
so it cannot make sense to claim BB(N) as undecidable at some limit L,
because that would imply some L-state machine to be undecidable, which
cannot actually be true
godel-bros be coping hard
;
#god
On 12/3/2025 10:50 AM, dart200 wrote:
nah ur just willfully ignoring ur bullshit:
if you claim halting to not be generally decidable ... then there must
exist some *real* machine who's halting cannot be decided upon,
demonstrably so (if such a machine does not exist, then halting must
be generally decidable)
but that's fucking retarded: such "undecidable" machines are pure
hypothesis, and cannot actually exist, so therefor all machines that
actually exist must be decidable
That is due to the screwy terminology conventions.
In computer science a decider is not simply a
machine that makes some correct decisions. It is
a machine that has the actual mind of God to make
every decision correctly. If there is one input
(even a semantically ill-formed input) that it
cannot decider then it is not a decider.
The huge mistake that all computer science, math
and logic has made ever since the syllogism is
dividing syntax from semantics.
When a decision problem has some nonsense inputs
that cannot be divided into true or false because
they are nonsense they call this undecidable.
Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
If you cannot decide then there must be something
wrong with you because we have assumed away that
there could be anything wrong with the input.
the BB(N) function compute the max finite step count for all N-state
machine permutations, all of which are machines that actually exist,
none of which can be undecidable ...
so it cannot make sense to claim BB(N) as undecidable at some limit L,
because that would imply some L-state machine to be undecidable, which
cannot actually be true
godel-bros be coping hard
;
#god
On 12/3/25 3:15 AM, Mild Shock wrote:
Hi,
You sure your name is not fart300 ? You
sound like an imbecil 5 year old moron.
"undecidability" kicks only in for
machines, that are not provable terminating.
Everything that is outside PRA showing
a function is total. BB(5) seems to be still
inside PRA total, otherwise a Coq proof seems
unlikely. But a Coq proof was published:
Determination of the fifth Busy Beaver value
https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.12337
Which is basically a glorified:
47,176,870 4098 current BB(5), step champion
https://turbotm.de/~heiner/BB/mabu90.html
Filling some holes, because I think mabu had
also a heuristic, that simply ignored very long
runners, by applying a threshold. These are undecided.
But judge from the Coq approach, everything
can be made decided inside BB(5).
Bye
dart200 schrieb:
On 12/3/25 2:02 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 12/2/25 11:55 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
Hi,
Well then get an education. Every Gödel
sentence G, has a size, doesn't it?
The formal analogue of the Liar Paradox,
except it’s expressed arithmetically:
G ≡ ∀y¬Proof(y,┌G┐).
Gödel did explicitly construct a Gödel
sentence G in his 1931 paper. He did not
claim it was astronomically large,
nor impossible to write. Now you can do
the encoded Liar also with Turing Machines TM:
1. Fix a formal proof system S (e.g. PA) and
an effective enumeration of all proofs.
2. Build a TM M(x) that, given a code x, searches
for an S-proof of the formula with code a; if it finds
M(x) halts <=> exists y Proof(y,x) (i.e. Prov(x)).
Etc.. etc..
bruh, that has literally nothing to do with fuck all basically,
it's seriously a non-sequitur response predicated on a what...
decades long category error???
see, generally speaking (as in *all* of them): proofs of
undecidability involve proving some hypothetical machine to be
undecidable/uncomputable that then supposedly *does not exist*,
like the M(x) that ur describing ...
the problem is: none of the machines expressed by the N-state
machine permutations, of where BusyBeaver(N) is the longest finite
step count, could be one of the hypothesized undecidable/
uncomputable machines as such a machine *does not exist*
so what does it even mean for a BB(N) computation to be
undecidable/ uncomputable??? you say that at some limit L, BB(L)
becomes "uncomputable" because godel blah blah blah but forget that >>>>> godel nonsense for a sec. consider the naive, infinite-tape
computation being done in BB here:
all BB(L) naively does with infinite tape (and unbounded time) is
sorry meant unbounded tape and unbounded time ofc
iterate over all permutations of L-state machines, testing each one >>>>> for halting/step count, and then returning whatever is the max of
that enumeration. if it can't do that, then were could the
"undecidability" have occurred? certainly finding the max over a
list of finite step counts isn't the problem, so the only other
problem possible is encountering some *real* machine U which then
cannot be decided upon ...
but like what could even be that *real* machine U which is
supposedly undecidable??? all the hypothesized "machines" proven
undecidable are claimed to then not exist!!! those hypothetically
undecidable machine cannot then come up while enumerating out
*real* L-state permutations ... so it actually makes zero sense to
say there is a provable limit to the BB function
so like yeah, what in the fuck is going on there godel-bros???
Bye
dart200 schrieb:
this shit makes me feel like i'm stuck in a mad house planet
undecidability has nothing to do with computational complexity
and the fact we think the limit to decidability is bounded by how >>>>>>> well we can bit pack a self-referential turing machine into a
proof is just literal nonsense
On 12/3/25 9:23 AM, Dude wrote:
On 12/3/2025 8:50 AM, dart200 wrote:
nah ur just willfully ignoring ur bullshit:To the guy that invented the zero: thanks for nothing.
You are starting to sound paranoid. Are you heading into a mid-life
crises? If you think you are, there may be help for you.
Obviously it's a mental condition: Sleepless nights. Nerves. Sudden
outbursts, cursing at inanimate objects. Grouchy. Calling out
strangers in chat rooms. Diminished appetite, except for spicy foods.
Godel also developed a severe case of paranoia. He thought he was
being poisoned so he refused to eat and slowly starved himself to
death. Which is not logical.
Apparently, he never figured out what was going on. Go figure.
i've been in a "midlife crisis" for the past decade dude
;
;
if you claim halting to not be generally decidable ... then there
must exist some *real* machine who's halting cannot be decided upon,
demonstrably so (if such a machine does not exist, then halting must
be generally decidable)
but that's fucking retarded: such "undecidable" machines are pure
hypothesis, and cannot actually exist, so therefor all machines that
actually exist must be decidable
the BB(N) function compute the max finite step count for all N-state
machine permutations, all of which are machines that actually exist,
none of which can be undecidable ...
so it cannot make sense to claim BB(N) as undecidable at some limit
L, because that would imply some L-state machine to be undecidable,
which cannot actually be true
godel-bros be coping hard
;
#god
On 12/3/25 9:23 AM, Dude wrote:
On 12/3/2025 8:50 AM, dart200 wrote:
nah ur just willfully ignoring ur bullshit:To the guy that invented the zero: thanks for nothing.
You are starting to sound paranoid. Are you heading into a mid-life
crises? If you think you are, there may be help for you.
Obviously it's a mental condition: Sleepless nights. Nerves. Sudden
outbursts, cursing at inanimate objects. Grouchy. Calling out
strangers in chat rooms. Diminished appetite, except for spicy foods.
Godel also developed a severe case of paranoia. He thought he was
being poisoned so he refused to eat and slowly starved himself to
death. Which is not logical.
Apparently, he never figured out what was going on. Go figure.
i've been in a "midlife crisis" for the past decade dude
On 12/3/2025 11:32 AM, dart200 wrote:What brand of cancer? Mine, Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia
On 12/3/25 9:23 AM, Dude wrote:
On 12/3/2025 8:50 AM, dart200 wrote:
nah ur just willfully ignoring ur bullshit:To the guy that invented the zero: thanks for nothing.
You are starting to sound paranoid. Are you heading into a mid-life
crises? If you think you are, there may be help for you.
Obviously it's a mental condition: Sleepless nights. Nerves. Sudden
outbursts, cursing at inanimate objects. Grouchy. Calling out
strangers in chat rooms. Diminished appetite, except for spicy foods.
Godel also developed a severe case of paranoia. He thought he was
being poisoned so he refused to eat and slowly starved himself to
death. Which is not logical.
Apparently, he never figured out what was going on. Go figure.
i've been in a "midlife crisis" for the past decade dude
I have never had a mid-life crisis. A year ago
I had a cancer is cutting off the blood supply
to your leg crisis. I am 70 now, mid life is over.
On 03/12/2025 17:37, olcott wrote:
On 12/3/2025 11:32 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 12/3/25 9:23 AM, Dude wrote:
On 12/3/2025 8:50 AM, dart200 wrote:
nah ur just willfully ignoring ur bullshit:To the guy that invented the zero: thanks for nothing.
You are starting to sound paranoid. Are you heading into a mid-life
crises? If you think you are, there may be help for you.
Obviously it's a mental condition: Sleepless nights. Nerves. Sudden
outbursts, cursing at inanimate objects. Grouchy. Calling out
strangers in chat rooms. Diminished appetite, except for spicy foods.
Godel also developed a severe case of paranoia. He thought he was
being poisoned so he refused to eat and slowly starved himself to
death. Which is not logical.
Apparently, he never figured out what was going on. Go figure.
i've been in a "midlife crisis" for the past decade dude
I have never had a mid-life crisis. A year ago
I had a cancer is cutting off the blood supply
to your leg crisis. I am 70 now, mid life is over.
What brand of cancer? Mine, Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia
with elements of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, cut off the blood
to 4 finger tips that led to 3 falling off after dry gangrene.
On 12/3/2025 11:59 AM, Julian wrote:
On 03/12/2025 17:37, olcott wrote:
On 12/3/2025 11:32 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 12/3/25 9:23 AM, Dude wrote:
On 12/3/2025 8:50 AM, dart200 wrote:
nah ur just willfully ignoring ur bullshit:To the guy that invented the zero: thanks for nothing.
You are starting to sound paranoid. Are you heading into a mid-life >>>>> crises? If you think you are, there may be help for you.
Obviously it's a mental condition: Sleepless nights. Nerves. Sudden >>>>> outbursts, cursing at inanimate objects. Grouchy. Calling out
strangers in chat rooms. Diminished appetite, except for spicy foods. >>>>>
Godel also developed a severe case of paranoia. He thought he was
being poisoned so he refused to eat and slowly starved himself to
death. Which is not logical.
Apparently, he never figured out what was going on. Go figure.
i've been in a "midlife crisis" for the past decade dude
I have never had a mid-life crisis. A year ago
I had a cancer is cutting off the blood supply
to your leg crisis. I am 70 now, mid life is over.
What brand of cancer? Mine, Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia
with elements of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, cut off the blood
to 4 finger tips that led to 3 falling off after dry gangrene.
Follicular Lymphoma that initially had massive tumor volume.
I was treated with CAR-T cell therapy and had complete
metabolic remission. I just had the second high LDH blood
test. Having a another PET scan tomorrow.
On 03/12/2025 18:21, olcott wrote:
On 12/3/2025 11:59 AM, Julian wrote:
On 03/12/2025 17:37, olcott wrote:
On 12/3/2025 11:32 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 12/3/25 9:23 AM, Dude wrote:
On 12/3/2025 8:50 AM, dart200 wrote:
nah ur just willfully ignoring ur bullshit:To the guy that invented the zero: thanks for nothing.
You are starting to sound paranoid. Are you heading into a mid-
life crises? If you think you are, there may be help for you.
Obviously it's a mental condition: Sleepless nights. Nerves.
Sudden outbursts, cursing at inanimate objects. Grouchy. Calling
out strangers in chat rooms. Diminished appetite, except for spicy >>>>>> foods.
Godel also developed a severe case of paranoia. He thought he was >>>>>> being poisoned so he refused to eat and slowly starved himself to >>>>>> death. Which is not logical.
Apparently, he never figured out what was going on. Go figure.
i've been in a "midlife crisis" for the past decade dude
I have never had a mid-life crisis. A year ago
I had a cancer is cutting off the blood supply
to your leg crisis. I am 70 now, mid life is over.
What brand of cancer? Mine, Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia
with elements of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, cut off the blood
to 4 finger tips that led to 3 falling off after dry gangrene.
Follicular Lymphoma that initially had massive tumor volume.
I was treated with CAR-T cell therapy and had complete
metabolic remission. I just had the second high LDH blood
test. Having a another PET scan tomorrow.
I had DRC protocol chemo in 2017 which returned it to
indolence until since mid 2024. It can't be cured but
can be managed indefinitely. I've been given a very
effective new drug that is a bland 4 capsules a day
with absolutely no bad side effects I've noticed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanubrutinib
On 12/3/2025 12:32 PM, Julian wrote:
On 03/12/2025 18:21, olcott wrote:
On 12/3/2025 11:59 AM, Julian wrote:
On 03/12/2025 17:37, olcott wrote:
On 12/3/2025 11:32 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 12/3/25 9:23 AM, Dude wrote:
On 12/3/2025 8:50 AM, dart200 wrote:
nah ur just willfully ignoring ur bullshit:To the guy that invented the zero: thanks for nothing.
You are starting to sound paranoid. Are you heading into a mid- >>>>>>> life crises? If you think you are, there may be help for you.
Obviously it's a mental condition: Sleepless nights. Nerves.
Sudden outbursts, cursing at inanimate objects. Grouchy. Calling >>>>>>> out strangers in chat rooms. Diminished appetite, except for
spicy foods.
Godel also developed a severe case of paranoia. He thought he was >>>>>>> being poisoned so he refused to eat and slowly starved himself to >>>>>>> death. Which is not logical.
Apparently, he never figured out what was going on. Go figure.
i've been in a "midlife crisis" for the past decade dude
I have never had a mid-life crisis. A year ago
I had a cancer is cutting off the blood supply
to your leg crisis. I am 70 now, mid life is over.
What brand of cancer? Mine, Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia
with elements of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, cut off the blood
to 4 finger tips that led to 3 falling off after dry gangrene.
Follicular Lymphoma that initially had massive tumor volume.
I was treated with CAR-T cell therapy and had complete
metabolic remission. I just had the second high LDH blood
test. Having a another PET scan tomorrow.
I had DRC protocol chemo in 2017 which returned it to
indolence until since mid 2024. It can't be cured but
can be managed indefinitely. I've been given a very
effective new drug that is a bland 4 capsules a day
with absolutely no bad side effects I've noticed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanubrutinib
I had R-CHOP in March of 2022. That got rid of my cancer
for 18 months, thus less than the 24 months for lasting
remission. My six month PET scan came back probably clean.
LDH is not 70% elevated. PET scan tomorrow. Blood tests
today.
On 03/12/2025 18:47, olcott wrote:
On 12/3/2025 12:32 PM, Julian wrote:
On 03/12/2025 18:21, olcott wrote:
On 12/3/2025 11:59 AM, Julian wrote:
On 03/12/2025 17:37, olcott wrote:
On 12/3/2025 11:32 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 12/3/25 9:23 AM, Dude wrote:
On 12/3/2025 8:50 AM, dart200 wrote:
nah ur just willfully ignoring ur bullshit:To the guy that invented the zero: thanks for nothing.
You are starting to sound paranoid. Are you heading into a mid- >>>>>>>> life crises? If you think you are, there may be help for you.
Obviously it's a mental condition: Sleepless nights. Nerves.
Sudden outbursts, cursing at inanimate objects. Grouchy. Calling >>>>>>>> out strangers in chat rooms. Diminished appetite, except for
spicy foods.
Godel also developed a severe case of paranoia. He thought he >>>>>>>> was being poisoned so he refused to eat and slowly starved
himself to death. Which is not logical.
Apparently, he never figured out what was going on. Go figure.
i've been in a "midlife crisis" for the past decade dude
I have never had a mid-life crisis. A year ago
I had a cancer is cutting off the blood supply
to your leg crisis. I am 70 now, mid life is over.
What brand of cancer? Mine, Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia
with elements of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, cut off the blood
to 4 finger tips that led to 3 falling off after dry gangrene.
Follicular Lymphoma that initially had massive tumor volume.
I was treated with CAR-T cell therapy and had complete
metabolic remission. I just had the second high LDH blood
test. Having a another PET scan tomorrow.
I had DRC protocol chemo in 2017 which returned it to
indolence until since mid 2024. It can't be cured but
can be managed indefinitely. I've been given a very
effective new drug that is a bland 4 capsules a day
with absolutely no bad side effects I've noticed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanubrutinib
I had R-CHOP in March of 2022. That got rid of my cancer
for 18 months, thus less than the 24 months for lasting
remission. My six month PET scan came back probably clean.
LDH is not 70% elevated. PET scan tomorrow. Blood tests
today.
I see that Zanubrutinib has recently been fast track
approved for people who have already had treatment
for Follicular Lymphoma.
On 12/3/25 11:56 AM, Julian wrote:
On 03/12/2025 18:47, olcott wrote:
I have never had a mid-life crisis. A year ago
I had a cancer is cutting off the blood supply
to your leg crisis. I am 70 now, mid life is over.
What brand of cancer? Mine, Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia
with elements of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, cut off the blood
to 4 finger tips that led to 3 falling off after dry gangrene.
Follicular Lymphoma that initially had massive tumor volume.
I was treated with CAR-T cell therapy and had complete
metabolic remission. I just had the second high LDH blood
test. Having a another PET scan tomorrow.
I had DRC protocol chemo in 2017 which returned it to
indolence until since mid 2024. It can't be cured but
can be managed indefinitely. I've been given a very
effective new drug that is a bland 4 capsules a day
with absolutely no bad side effects I've noticed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanubrutinib
I had R-CHOP in March of 2022. That got rid of my cancer
for 18 months, thus less than the 24 months for lasting
remission. My six month PET scan came back probably clean.
LDH is not 70% elevated. PET scan tomorrow. Blood tests
today.
I see that Zanubrutinib has recently been fast track
approved for people who have already had treatment
for Follicular Lymphoma.
hey dude, did u ever get the cancer???
On 12/3/2025 12:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 12/3/25 11:56 AM, Julian wrote:Never had cancer, just obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and attention deficit disorder (ADD) with a mild case of seasonal allergies, which I
On 03/12/2025 18:47, olcott wrote:
I have never had a mid-life crisis. A year ago
I had a cancer is cutting off the blood supply
to your leg crisis. I am 70 now, mid life is over.
What brand of cancer? Mine, Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia
with elements of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, cut off the blood >>>>>>> to 4 finger tips that led to 3 falling off after dry gangrene.
Follicular Lymphoma that initially had massive tumor volume.
I was treated with CAR-T cell therapy and had complete
metabolic remission. I just had the second high LDH blood
test. Having a another PET scan tomorrow.
I had DRC protocol chemo in 2017 which returned it to
indolence until since mid 2024. It can't be cured but
can be managed indefinitely. I've been given a very
effective new drug that is a bland 4 capsules a day
with absolutely no bad side effects I've noticed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanubrutinib
I had R-CHOP in March of 2022. That got rid of my cancer
for 18 months, thus less than the 24 months for lasting
remission. My six month PET scan came back probably clean.
LDH is not 70% elevated. PET scan tomorrow. Blood tests
today.
I see that Zanubrutinib has recently been fast track
approved for people who have already had treatment
for Follicular Lymphoma.
hey dude, did u ever get the cancer???
self medicate with ephedrine.
On 12/2/25 11:55 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
Hi,
Well then get an education. Every Gödel
sentence G, has a size, doesn't it?
The formal analogue of the Liar Paradox,
except it’s expressed arithmetically:
G ≡ ∀y¬Proof(y,┌G┐).
Gödel did explicitly construct a Gödel
sentence G in his 1931 paper. He did not
claim it was astronomically large,
nor impossible to write. Now you can do
the encoded Liar also with Turing Machines TM:
1. Fix a formal proof system S (e.g. PA) and
an effective enumeration of all proofs.
2. Build a TM M(x) that, given a code x, searches
for an S-proof of the formula with code a; if it finds
M(x) halts <=> exists y Proof(y,x) (i.e. Prov(x)).
Etc.. etc..
bruh, that has literally nothing to do with fuck all basically, it's seriously a non-sequitur response predicated on a what... decades long category error???
see, generally speaking (as in *all* of them): proofs of undecidability
involve proving some hypothetical machine to be undecidable/uncomputable that then supposedly *does not exist*, like the M(x) that ur describing ...
the problem is: none of the machines expressed by the N-state machine permutations, of where BusyBeaver(N) is the longest finite step count,
could be one of the hypothesized undecidable/uncomputable machines as
such a machine *does not exist*
so what does it even mean for a BB(N) computation to be undecidable/ uncomputable??? you say that at some limit L, BB(L) becomes
"uncomputable" because godel blah blah blah but forget that godel
nonsense for a sec. consider the naive, infinite-tape computation being
done in BB here:
all BB(L) naively does with infinite tape (and unbounded time) is
iterate over all permutations of L-state machines, testing each one for halting/step count, and then returning whatever is the max of that enumeration. if it can't do that, then were could the "undecidability"
have occurred? certainly finding the max over a list of finite step
counts isn't the problem, so the only other problem possible is
encountering some *real* machine U which then cannot be decided upon ...
but like what could even be that *real* machine U which is supposedly undecidable??? all the hypothesized "machines" proven undecidable are claimed to then not exist!!! those hypothetically undecidable machine
cannot then come up while enumerating out *real* L-state
permutations ... so it actually makes zero sense to say there is a
provable limit to the BB function
so like yeah, what in the fuck is going on there godel-bros???
Bye
dart200 schrieb:
this shit makes me feel like i'm stuck in a mad house planet
undecidability has nothing to do with computational complexity and
the fact we think the limit to decidability is bounded by how well we
can bit pack a self-referential turing machine into a proof is just
literal nonsense
On 12/3/2025 12:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
hey dude, did u ever get the cancer???Never had cancer, just obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and attention deficit disorder (ADD) with a mild case of seasonal allergies, which I
self medicate with ephedrine.
On 05/12/2025 02:25, Dude wrote:
On 12/3/2025 12:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
hey dude, did u ever get the cancer???Never had cancer, just obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and
attention deficit disorder (ADD) with a mild case of seasonal
allergies, which I self medicate with ephedrine.
Fucking hell, I am gonna puke...
@Thunderbird: please implement global filters!
*PLONK*
Julio
On 03/12/2025 18:21, olcott wrote:
On 12/3/2025 11:59 AM, Julian wrote:
On 03/12/2025 17:37, olcott wrote:
On 12/3/2025 11:32 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 12/3/25 9:23 AM, Dude wrote:
On 12/3/2025 8:50 AM, dart200 wrote:
nah ur just willfully ignoring ur bullshit:To the guy that invented the zero: thanks for nothing.
You are starting to sound paranoid. Are you heading into a mid-
life crises? If you think you are, there may be help for you.
Obviously it's a mental condition: Sleepless nights. Nerves.
Sudden outbursts, cursing at inanimate objects. Grouchy. Calling
out strangers in chat rooms. Diminished appetite, except for spicy >>>>>> foods.
Godel also developed a severe case of paranoia. He thought he was >>>>>> being poisoned so he refused to eat and slowly starved himself to >>>>>> death. Which is not logical.
Apparently, he never figured out what was going on. Go figure.
i've been in a "midlife crisis" for the past decade dude
I have never had a mid-life crisis. A year ago
I had a cancer is cutting off the blood supply
to your leg crisis. I am 70 now, mid life is over.
What brand of cancer? Mine, Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia
with elements of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, cut off the blood
to 4 finger tips that led to 3 falling off after dry gangrene.
Follicular Lymphoma that initially had massive tumor volume.
I was treated with CAR-T cell therapy and had complete
metabolic remission. I just had the second high LDH blood
test. Having a another PET scan tomorrow.
I had DRC protocol chemo in 2017 which returned it to
indolence until since mid 2024. It can't be cured but
can be managed indefinitely. I've been given a very
effective new drug that is a bland 4 capsules a day
with absolutely no bad side effects I've noticed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanubrutinib
On 12/4/25 11:22 PM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
On 05/12/2025 02:25, Dude wrote:
On 12/3/2025 12:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
hey dude, did u ever get the cancer???Never had cancer, just obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and
attention deficit disorder (ADD) with a mild case of seasonal
allergies, which I self medicate with ephedrine.
Fucking hell, I am gonna puke...
@Thunderbird: please implement global filters!
*PLONK*
Julio
dude, don't u love it when people actually *announce* their self-induced vanity??? 😂😂😂
🤡🌎
Hi,
In the coming age of analog computing,
symbolic logic means nothing:
“The high data-rate sense perception and
identification abilities of the human system
mostly bypass verbal/analytic awareness. We
are generally conscious of a cognitive
recognition after the fact. In this way, what
we understand as consciousness has to be
identified as a reflexive monitoring ability
with quite limited application. To produce
consciousness (artificial or otherwise) we
are stepping down, not up.”
― Frank Herbert, Destination: Void
Bye
On 12/4/2025 11:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 12/4/25 11:22 PM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:It is amusing to see an informant go full dictator on the group and puke over mere words on a screen. I would give Julio a 3 on a scale of 10.
On 05/12/2025 02:25, Dude wrote:
On 12/3/2025 12:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
hey dude, did u ever get the cancer???Never had cancer, just obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and
attention deficit disorder (ADD) with a mild case of seasonal
allergies, which I self medicate with ephedrine.
Fucking hell, I am gonna puke...
@Thunderbird: please implement global filters!
*PLONK*
Julio
dude, don't u love it when people actually *announce* their self-
induced vanity??? 😂😂😂
🤡🌎
Not bad for a newbie!
Ned got a 10 from me. Good work!
See Nick, I belong to a very minor, obscure and deviant religious Hindu sect. It has been described as regressive and accused of acting out
often in public, as a form of spiritual witnessing.
Often members of my sect carry cell phones and will be seen video taping people's reactions, as a form of public education and individual First Amendment rights.
To that end, they may shout obscenities or make vulgar comments to passersby, in an effort to get attention. It's that simple.
The purpose of this activity is to provoke negative reactions in people
and then post the video onto TikTac for all to see people go berserk
with hatred.
So, as to help them burn up their accrued bad karma and be free of the negative forces, in order to provide the ideal opportunity for feeling
free and liberated.
So, for starters:--
There's no fucking Buddha; it's all about sex. Everything happens for a reason.
Me: LEM is derivable from RAA, in minimal logic.
Prof: LEM is not even derivable from RAA in intuitionistic logic.
Me: You didn’t use RAA as an inference schema!
Prof: Our discussion is about logic and not about Prolog. I apologize.
Hi,
I always admired the French Teaching of Logic.
This silly Philosophy Professor scolded me a couple
of times with this nonsense, playing dumb and deaf,
like a complete idiot:
Me: LEM is derivable from RAA, in minimal logic.
Prof: LEM is not even derivable from RAA in intuitionistic logic.
Me: You didn’t use RAA as an inference schema!
Prof: Our discussion is about logic and not about Prolog. I apologize. https://swi-prolog.discourse.group/t/needing-help-with-call-with-depth-limit-3/7398/78
Still his prover demonstrates LEM from RAA:
?-prove((a | ~a)).
\begin{prooftree}
\AxiomC{\scriptsize{1}}
\noLine
\UnaryInfC{$ \lnot (A \lor \lnot A)$}
\RightLabel{\scriptsize{$ \lor\to E$}}
\UnaryInfC{$ \lnot \lnot A$}
\AxiomC{\scriptsize{1}}
\noLine
\UnaryInfC{$ \lnot (A \lor \lnot A)$}
\RightLabel{\scriptsize{$ \lor\to E$}}
\UnaryInfC{$ \lnot A$}
\RightLabel{\scriptsize{$ \to E $}}
\BinaryInfC{$\bot$}
\RightLabel{\scriptsize{$ IP $} 1}
\UnaryInfC{$A \lor \lnot A$}
\end{prooftree} https://g4-mic.vidal-rosset.net/wasm/tinker#prove((a%20%7C%20~a)).
Please note that RAA = IP, synonymous names.
Reductio Ad Absurdum and Indirect Proof.
LoL
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
In the coming age of analog computing,
symbolic logic means nothing:
“The high data-rate sense perception and
identification abilities of the human system
mostly bypass verbal/analytic awareness. We
are generally conscious of a cognitive
recognition after the fact. In this way, what
we understand as consciousness has to be
identified as a reflexive monitoring ability
with quite limited application. To produce
consciousness (artificial or otherwise) we
are stepping down, not up.”
― Frank Herbert, Destination: Void
Bye
On 05/12/2025 02:25, Dude wrote:
On 12/3/2025 12:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
hey dude, did u ever get the cancer???Never had cancer, just obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and
attention deficit disorder (ADD) with a mild case of seasonal
allergies, which I self medicate with ephedrine.
Fucking hell, I am gonna puke...
@Thunderbird: please implement global filters!
*PLONK*
Julio
On 12/5/2025 12:18 PM, Dude wrote:
On 12/4/2025 11:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 12/4/25 11:22 PM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:It is amusing to see an informant go full dictator on the group and
On 05/12/2025 02:25, Dude wrote:
On 12/3/2025 12:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
hey dude, did u ever get the cancer???Never had cancer, just obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and
attention deficit disorder (ADD) with a mild case of seasonal
allergies, which I self medicate with ephedrine.
Fucking hell, I am gonna puke...
@Thunderbird: please implement global filters!
*PLONK*
Julio
dude, don't u love it when people actually *announce* their self-
induced vanity??? 😂😂😂
🤡🌎
puke over mere words on a screen. I would give Julio a 3 on a scale of
10. Not bad for a newbie!
Ned got a 10 from me. Good work!
See Nick, I belong to a very minor, obscure and deviant religious
Hindu sect. It has been described as regressive and accused of acting
out often in public, as a form of spiritual witnessing.
Often members of my sect carry cell phones and will be seen video
taping people's reactions, as a form of public education and
individual First Amendment rights.
To that end, they may shout obscenities or make vulgar comments to
passersby, in an effort to get attention. It's that simple.
The purpose of this activity is to provoke negative reactions in
people and then post the video onto TikTac for all to see people go
berserk with hatred.
So, as to help them burn up their accrued bad karma and be free of the
negative forces, in order to provide the ideal opportunity for feeling
free and liberated.
What you are saying seems anchored in duality https://endless-satsang.com/advaita-nonduality-oneness
So, for starters:
There's no fucking Buddha; it's all about sex. Everything happens for
a reason.
On 12/5/2025 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/5/2025 12:18 PM, Dude wrote:Apparently there are no true materialists on this list.
On 12/4/2025 11:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 12/4/25 11:22 PM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:It is amusing to see an informant go full dictator on the group and
On 05/12/2025 02:25, Dude wrote:
On 12/3/2025 12:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
hey dude, did u ever get the cancer???Never had cancer, just obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and
attention deficit disorder (ADD) with a mild case of seasonal
allergies, which I self medicate with ephedrine.
Fucking hell, I am gonna puke...
@Thunderbird: please implement global filters!
*PLONK*
Julio
dude, don't u love it when people actually *announce* their self-
induced vanity??? 😂😂😂
🤡🌎
puke over mere words on a screen. I would give Julio a 3 on a scale
of 10. Not bad for a newbie!
Ned got a 10 from me. Good work!
See Nick, I belong to a very minor, obscure and deviant religious
Hindu sect. It has been described as regressive and accused of acting
out often in public, as a form of spiritual witnessing.
Often members of my sect carry cell phones and will be seen video
taping people's reactions, as a form of public education and
individual First Amendment rights.
To that end, they may shout obscenities or make vulgar comments to
passersby, in an effort to get attention. It's that simple.
The purpose of this activity is to provoke negative reactions in
people and then post the video onto TikTac for all to see people go
berserk with hatred.
So, as to help them burn up their accrued bad karma and be free of
the negative forces, in order to provide the ideal opportunity for
feeling free and liberated.
What you are saying seems anchored in duality
https://endless-satsang.com/advaita-nonduality-oneness
My position, and the position of most idealistic transcendentalists, is
that we infer, from the fact of being conscious, that consciousness
itself is the ultimate reality.
Because without consciousness, we would not exist.
This is the view of the Consciousness Only school of Tibetan Buddhism.
So, for starters:
There's no fucking Buddha; it's all about sex. Everything happens for
a reason.
On 12/3/2025 11:23 AM, Dude wrote:
On 12/3/2025 8:50 AM, dart200 wrote:
nah ur just willfully ignoring ur bullshit:To the guy that invented the zero: thanks for nothing.
You are starting to sound paranoid. Are you heading into a mid-life
crises? If you think you are, there may be help for you.
Obviously it's a mental condition: Sleepless nights. Nerves. Sudden
outbursts, cursing at inanimate objects. Grouchy. Calling out
strangers in chat rooms. Diminished appetite, except for spicy foods.
You are staring to sound like a hateful bastard
that will be eventually condemned to actual Hell
(if such a place exists).
On 12/3/2025 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/3/2025 11:23 AM, Dude wrote:Some people just feel better when they have someone to talk to.
On 12/3/2025 8:50 AM, dart200 wrote:
nah ur just willfully ignoring ur bullshit:To the guy that invented the zero: thanks for nothing.
You are starting to sound paranoid. Are you heading into a mid-life
crises? If you think you are, there may be help for you.
Obviously it's a mental condition: Sleepless nights. Nerves. Sudden
outbursts, cursing at inanimate objects. Grouchy. Calling out
strangers in chat rooms. Diminished appetite, except for spicy foods.
You are staring to sound like a hateful bastard
that will be eventually condemned to actual Hell
(if such a place exists).
On 12/5/2025 4:22 PM, Dude wrote:
If you are a Mind Only Buddhist you are
Some people just feel better when they have someone to talk to.
doing a terrible job of it.
On 12/5/2025 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/5/2025 4:22 PM, Dude wrote:Consciousness is the ultimate reality. There is no Buddha in the
If you are a Mind Only Buddhist you are
Some people just feel better when they have someone to talk to.
doing a terrible job of it.
absolute sense. Duality is an appearance only and it's all about sex.
One thing leads to another. Everything happens for a reason: causation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogachara
"Two birds, inseparable companions, perch on the same tree, one eats the fruit, the other looks on." - Mandukya Up 3.1.1
On 12/5/2025 7:51 PM, Dude wrote:
On 12/5/2025 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/5/2025 4:22 PM, Dude wrote:Consciousness is the ultimate reality. There is no Buddha in the
If you are a Mind Only Buddhist you are
Some people just feel better when they have someone to talk to.
doing a terrible job of it.
absolute sense. Duality is an appearance only and it's all about sex.
One thing leads to another. Everything happens for a reason: causation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogachara
"Two birds, inseparable companions, perch on the same tree, one eats
the fruit, the other looks on." - Mandukya Up 3.1.1
That does not seems consistent with playing some
of the head games that you say that you play.
That people in boats are being murdered is Satanic
even if Satan is a figure-of-speech.
On 12/5/2025 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/5/2025 12:18 PM, Dude wrote:
On 12/4/2025 11:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 12/4/25 11:22 PM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:It is amusing to see an informant go full dictator on the group and
On 05/12/2025 02:25, Dude wrote:
On 12/3/2025 12:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
hey dude, did u ever get the cancer???Never had cancer, just obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and
attention deficit disorder (ADD) with a mild case of seasonal
allergies, which I self medicate with ephedrine.
Fucking hell, I am gonna puke...
@Thunderbird: please implement global filters!
*PLONK*
Julio
dude, don't u love it when people actually *announce* their self-
induced vanity??? 😂😂😂
🤡🌎
puke over mere words on a screen. I would give Julio a 3 on a scale
of 10. Not bad for a newbie!
Ned got a 10 from me. Good work!
See Nick, I belong to a very minor, obscure
and deviant religious
Apparently there are no true materialists on this list.Hindu sect. It has been described as regressive and accused of acting
out often in public, as a form of spiritual witnessing.
Often members of my sect carry cell phones and will be seen video
taping people's reactions, as a form of public education and
individual First Amendment rights.
To that end, they may shout obscenities or make vulgar comments to
passersby, in an effort to get attention. It's that simple.
The purpose of this activity is to provoke negative reactions in
people and then post the video onto TikTac for all to see people go
berserk with hatred.
So, as to help them burn up their accrued bad karma and be free of
the negative forces, in order to provide the ideal opportunity for
feeling free and liberated.
What you are saying seems anchored in duality
https://endless-satsang.com/advaita-nonduality-oneness
My position, and the position of most idealistic transcendentalists, is
that we infer, from the fact of being conscious, that consciousness
itself is the ultimate reality.
Because without consciousness, we would not exist.
This is the view of the Consciousness Only school of Tibetan Buddhism.--
So, for starters:
There's no fucking Buddha; it's all about sex. Everything happens for
a reason.
On 12/5/25 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/5/2025 7:51 PM, Dude wrote:
On 12/5/2025 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/5/2025 4:22 PM, Dude wrote:Consciousness is the ultimate reality. There is no Buddha in the
If you are a Mind Only Buddhist you are
Some people just feel better when they have someone to talk to.
doing a terrible job of it.
absolute sense. Duality is an appearance only and it's all about sex.
One thing leads to another. Everything happens for a reason: causation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogachara
"Two birds, inseparable companions, perch on the same tree, one eats
the fruit, the other looks on." - Mandukya Up 3.1.1
That does not seems consistent with playing some
of the head games that you say that you play.
That people in boats are being murdered is Satanic
even if Satan is a figure-of-speech.
dude, do i really need to choose between dualism and non-dualism???
both perspectives have their place it's not actually a contradiction
we are all god is all of us
eh????
On 12/5/25 12:14 PM, Dude wrote:
On 12/5/2025 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/5/2025 12:18 PM, Dude wrote:
On 12/4/2025 11:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 12/4/25 11:22 PM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:It is amusing to see an informant go full dictator on the group and
On 05/12/2025 02:25, Dude wrote:
On 12/3/2025 12:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
hey dude, did u ever get the cancer???Never had cancer, just obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and
attention deficit disorder (ADD) with a mild case of seasonal
allergies, which I self medicate with ephedrine.
Fucking hell, I am gonna puke...
@Thunderbird: please implement global filters!
*PLONK*
Julio
dude, don't u love it when people actually *announce* their self-
induced vanity??? 😂😂😂
🤡🌎
puke over mere words on a screen. I would give Julio a 3 on a scale
of 10. Not bad for a newbie!
Ned got a 10 from me. Good work!
See Nick, I belong to a very minor, obscure
i, however, take no sides and give no quarter
and deviant religious
be "deviant" u mean sex??? like the ancient indian figurines with the
nice boobies? horny ass mf figured out boob jobs would exist millennia before we could do them... nice
Apparently there are no true materialists on this list.Hindu sect. It has been described as regressive and accused of
acting out often in public, as a form of spiritual witnessing.
Often members of my sect carry cell phones and will be seen video
taping people's reactions, as a form of public education and
individual First Amendment rights.
To that end, they may shout obscenities or make vulgar comments to
passersby, in an effort to get attention. It's that simple.
The purpose of this activity is to provoke negative reactions in
people and then post the video onto TikTac for all to see people go
berserk with hatred.
So, as to help them burn up their accrued bad karma and be free of
the negative forces, in order to provide the ideal opportunity for
feeling free and liberated.
What you are saying seems anchored in duality
https://endless-satsang.com/advaita-nonduality-oneness
My position, and the position of most idealistic transcendentalists,
is that we infer, from the fact of being conscious, that consciousness
itself is the ultimate reality.
Because without consciousness, we would not exist.
but also without we, consciousness wouldn't exist, eh???
This is the view of the Consciousness Only school of Tibetan Buddhism.
;
So, for starters:
There's no fucking Buddha; it's all about sex. Everything happens
for a reason.
On 12/5/2025 7:51 PM, Dude wrote:
On 12/5/2025 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/5/2025 4:22 PM, Dude wrote:Consciousness is the ultimate reality. There is no Buddha in the
If you are a Mind Only Buddhist you are
Some people just feel better when they have someone to talk to.
doing a terrible job of it.
absolute sense. Duality is an appearance only and it's all about sex.
One thing leads to another. Everything happens for a reason: causation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogachara
"Two birds, inseparable companions, perch on the same tree, one eats
the fruit, the other looks on." - Mandukya Up 3.1.1
That does not seems consistent with playing some
of the head games that you say that you play.
That people in boats are being murdered is Sataniceven if Satan is a figure-of-speech.
On 12/5/2025 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/5/2025 7:51 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? How did you get in here?
On 12/5/2025 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/5/2025 4:22 PM, Dude wrote:Consciousness is the ultimate reality. There is no Buddha in the
If you are a Mind Only Buddhist you are
Some people just feel better when they have someone to talk to.
doing a terrible job of it.
absolute sense. Duality is an appearance only and it's all about sex.
One thing leads to another. Everything happens for a reason: causation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogachara
"Two birds, inseparable companions, perch on the same tree, one eats
the fruit, the other looks on." - Mandukya Up 3.1.1
That does not seems consistent with playing some
of the head games that you say that you play.
The US bombed the shit out of German u-boats in international waters inThat people in boats are being murdered is Sataniceven if Satan is a figure-of-speech.
WW II. We blew the bastards out of the water! God damned Nazi Jew haters!
Hit them! Hit them hard!
"Two birds, inseparable companions, perch on the same tree, one eats the fruit, the other looks on." - Mand Up 3.1.1--
On 12/6/2025 12:11 PM, Dude wrote:
On 12/5/2025 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/5/2025 7:51 PM, Dude wrote:Are you nuts? How did you get in here?
On 12/5/2025 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/5/2025 4:22 PM, Dude wrote:Consciousness is the ultimate reality. There is no Buddha in the
If you are a Mind Only Buddhist you are
Some people just feel better when they have someone to talk to.
doing a terrible job of it.
absolute sense. Duality is an appearance only and it's all about
sex. One thing leads to another. Everything happens for a reason:
causation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogachara
"Two birds, inseparable companions, perch on the same tree, one eats
the fruit, the other looks on." - Mandukya Up 3.1.1
That does not seems consistent with playing some
of the head games that you say that you play.
The US bombed the shit out of German u-boats in international watersThat people in boats are being murdered is Sataniceven if Satan is a figure-of-speech.
in WW II. We blew the bastards out of the water! God damned Nazi Jew
haters!
Hit them! Hit them hard!
The kind of things that you say contradict
themselves. You are not showing any "Mind Only" behavior.
"Two birds, inseparable companions, perch on the same tree, one eats
the fruit, the other looks on." - Mand Up 3.1.1
we are all god is all of us
Hi,
I always admired the French Teaching of Logic.
This silly Philosophy Professor scolded me a couple
of times with this nonsense, playing dumb and deaf,
like a complete idiot:
Me: LEM is derivable from RAA, in minimal logic.
Prof: LEM is not even derivable from RAA in intuitionistic logic.
Me: You didn’t use RAA as an inference schema!
Prof: Our discussion is about logic and not about Prolog. I apologize. https://swi-prolog.discourse.group/t/needing-help-with-call-with-depth-limit-3/7398/78
Still his prover demonstrates LEM from RAA:
?-prove((a | ~a)).
\begin{prooftree}
\AxiomC{\scriptsize{1}}
\noLine
\UnaryInfC{$ \lnot (A \lor \lnot A)$}
\RightLabel{\scriptsize{$ \lor\to E$}}
\UnaryInfC{$ \lnot \lnot A$}
\AxiomC{\scriptsize{1}}
\noLine
\UnaryInfC{$ \lnot (A \lor \lnot A)$}
\RightLabel{\scriptsize{$ \lor\to E$}}
\UnaryInfC{$ \lnot A$}
\RightLabel{\scriptsize{$ \to E $}}
\BinaryInfC{$\bot$}
\RightLabel{\scriptsize{$ IP $} 1}
\UnaryInfC{$A \lor \lnot A$}
\end{prooftree} https://g4-mic.vidal-rosset.net/wasm/tinker#prove((a%20%7C%20~a)).
Please note that RAA = IP, synonymous names.
Reductio Ad Absurdum and Indirect Proof.
LoL
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
In the coming age of analog computing,
symbolic logic means nothing:
“The high data-rate sense perception and
identification abilities of the human system
mostly bypass verbal/analytic awareness. We
are generally conscious of a cognitive
recognition after the fact. In this way, what
we understand as consciousness has to be
identified as a reflexive monitoring ability
with quite limited application. To produce
consciousness (artificial or otherwise) we
are stepping down, not up.”
― Frank Herbert, Destination: Void
Bye
Hi,
The French Enlightenment (roughly 1700–1789)
produced extraordinary advances in mathematics,
science, and philosophy, but its concept of geometry
was still deeply tied to Euclid, and that limited
what even brilliant thinkers could imagine.
What was Euclid really doing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-MgQC6z3VU
Amazingling during the French Engligment the
Parallel Postuale was not yet recognized as
independent. Rather we find:
- Adrien-Marie Legendre (1752–1833)
Repeatedly revised arguments to derive
the parallel postulate
- Joseph-Louis Lagrange (1736–1813)
Gave a lecture trying to derive the parallel
axiom from properties of similar triangles
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
I always admired the French Teaching of Logic.
This silly Philosophy Professor scolded me a couple
of times with this nonsense, playing dumb and deaf,
like a complete idiot:
Me: LEM is derivable from RAA, in minimal logic.
Prof: LEM is not even derivable from RAA in intuitionistic logic.
Me: You didn’t use RAA as an inference schema!
Prof: Our discussion is about logic and not about Prolog. I apologize.
https://swi-prolog.discourse.group/t/needing-help-with-call-with-depth-limit-3/7398/78
Still his prover demonstrates LEM from RAA:
?-prove((a | ~a)).
\begin{prooftree}
\AxiomC{\scriptsize{1}}
\noLine
\UnaryInfC{$ \lnot (A \lor \lnot A)$}
\RightLabel{\scriptsize{$ \lor\to E$}}
\UnaryInfC{$ \lnot \lnot A$}
\AxiomC{\scriptsize{1}}
\noLine
\UnaryInfC{$ \lnot (A \lor \lnot A)$}
\RightLabel{\scriptsize{$ \lor\to E$}}
\UnaryInfC{$ \lnot A$}
\RightLabel{\scriptsize{$ \to E $}}
\BinaryInfC{$\bot$}
\RightLabel{\scriptsize{$ IP $} 1}
\UnaryInfC{$A \lor \lnot A$}
\end{prooftree}
https://g4-mic.vidal-rosset.net/wasm/tinker#prove((a%20%7C%20~a)).
Please note that RAA = IP, synonymous names.
Reductio Ad Absurdum and Indirect Proof.
LoL
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
In the coming age of analog computing,
symbolic logic means nothing:
“The high data-rate sense perception and
identification abilities of the human system
mostly bypass verbal/analytic awareness. We
are generally conscious of a cognitive
recognition after the fact. In this way, what
we understand as consciousness has to be
identified as a reflexive monitoring ability
with quite limited application. To produce
consciousness (artificial or otherwise) we
are stepping down, not up.”
― Frank Herbert, Destination: Void
Bye
Hi,
Even Rene Descartes was not aware of the
independence. Descartes’s failure has the same
underlying cause as later ones.
His algebraic setup already assumes Euclidean
geometry. He used geometric intuitions that were
secretly equivalent to Euclid’s axiom. He
lacked the concept of alternate geometries.
What an AI could have done (According to ChatGPT):
(A) Reveal hidden assumptions in every failed proof
An AI could:
- symbolically analyze the proof
- extract all uses of implicit Euclidean intuition
- point out: “This step assumes that similar triangles
can be scaled arbitrarily, which is equivalent to
the parallel postulate.”
That kind of meta-analysis was unavailable to human
mathematicians of the time.
(B) Construct explicit models of non-Euclidean geometries
The big conceptual leap of the 19th century was the ability
to imagine a consistent geometry in which the parallel
postulate is false.
An AI could directly produce:
- the Poincaré disk model
- the hyperboloid model
- the upper half-plane model
and demonstrate that all of Euclid’s axioms (except the
parallel postulate) hold in these spaces.
(C) Clarify the logical structure of axioms
Hilbert’s axiomatization (1899) came very late, but
an AI could produce a clean formal structure centuries earlier:
- incidence axioms
- order axioms
- congruence axioms
- continuity axioms
parallel axiom as a separate toggle
This framework itself would have been revolutionary.
Bye
Disclaimer: Not sure how much of (A), (B) and (C) are
fact or fuction. Don't have Google DeepMind company
badge. See my other post
Subject: Turing-Test to Birch++-Test [Professor Yang-Hui He]
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2025 14:55:28 +0100
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
The French Enlightenment (roughly 1700–1789)
produced extraordinary advances in mathematics,
science, and philosophy, but its concept of geometry
was still deeply tied to Euclid, and that limited
what even brilliant thinkers could imagine.
What was Euclid really doing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-MgQC6z3VU
Amazingling during the French Engligment the
Parallel Postuale was not yet recognized as
independent. Rather we find:
- Adrien-Marie Legendre (1752–1833)
Repeatedly revised arguments to derive
the parallel postulate
- Joseph-Louis Lagrange (1736–1813)
Gave a lecture trying to derive the parallel
axiom from properties of similar triangles
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
I always admired the French Teaching of Logic.
This silly Philosophy Professor scolded me a couple
of times with this nonsense, playing dumb and deaf,
like a complete idiot:
Me: LEM is derivable from RAA, in minimal logic.
Prof: LEM is not even derivable from RAA in intuitionistic logic.
Me: You didn’t use RAA as an inference schema!
Prof: Our discussion is about logic and not about Prolog. I apologize.
https://swi-prolog.discourse.group/t/needing-help-with-call-with-depth-limit-3/7398/78
Still his prover demonstrates LEM from RAA:
?-prove((a | ~a)).
\begin{prooftree}
\AxiomC{\scriptsize{1}}
\noLine
\UnaryInfC{$ \lnot (A \lor \lnot A)$}
\RightLabel{\scriptsize{$ \lor\to E$}}
\UnaryInfC{$ \lnot \lnot A$}
\AxiomC{\scriptsize{1}}
\noLine
\UnaryInfC{$ \lnot (A \lor \lnot A)$}
\RightLabel{\scriptsize{$ \lor\to E$}}
\UnaryInfC{$ \lnot A$}
\RightLabel{\scriptsize{$ \to E $}}
\BinaryInfC{$\bot$}
\RightLabel{\scriptsize{$ IP $} 1}
\UnaryInfC{$A \lor \lnot A$}
\end{prooftree}
https://g4-mic.vidal-rosset.net/wasm/tinker#prove((a%20%7C%20~a)).
Please note that RAA = IP, synonymous names.
Reductio Ad Absurdum and Indirect Proof.
LoL
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
In the coming age of analog computing,
symbolic logic means nothing:
“The high data-rate sense perception and
identification abilities of the human system
mostly bypass verbal/analytic awareness. We
are generally conscious of a cognitive
recognition after the fact. In this way, what
we understand as consciousness has to be
identified as a reflexive monitoring ability
with quite limited application. To produce
consciousness (artificial or otherwise) we
are stepping down, not up.”
― Frank Herbert, Destination: Void
Bye
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,090 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 156:55:47 |
| Calls: | 13,922 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 187,021 |
| D/L today: |
4,131 files (1,056M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,457,227 |