On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
a Collection is defined one or more things that have one or more
properties in common. These operations from set theory are available:
{rea, ree}
An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or formal) language L that
has been assigned the semantic property of True. (Similar to a math
Axiom).
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms the ultimate
foundation of the notion of Truth in language L.
To verify that an expression X of language L is True or False only
requires a syntactic logical consequence inference chain (formal
proof) from one or more elements of T to X or ~X.
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X)
False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X)
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since 1997) Pete Olcott
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that can be formalized symbolically.
All of formalized Truth is only about relations between finite strings
of characters.
This exact same Truth can be equally expressed (tokenized) as relations between integers.
On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
a Collection is defined one or more things that have one or more
properties in common. These operations from set theory are available:
{rea, ree}
An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or formal) language L that
has been assigned the semantic property of True. (Similar to a math
Axiom).
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms the ultimate
foundation of the notion of Truth in language L.
To verify that an expression X of language L is True or False only
requires a syntactic logical consequence inference chain (formal
proof) from one or more elements of T to X or ~X.
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X)
False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X)
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since 1997) Pete Olcott
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that can be formalized
symbolically.
All of formalized Truth is only about relations between finite strings
of characters.
This exact same Truth can be equally expressed (tokenized) as
relations between integers.
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
is entirely expressed as relations between finite strings
of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable.
On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
a Collection is defined one or more things that have one or more
properties in common. These operations from set theory are
available: {rea, ree}
An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or formal) language L
that has been assigned the semantic property of True. (Similar to a
math Axiom).
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms the ultimate
foundation of the notion of Truth in language L.
To verify that an expression X of language L is True or False only
requires a syntactic logical consequence inference chain (formal
proof) from one or more elements of T to X or ~X.
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X)
False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X)
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since 1997) Pete Olcott
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that can be formalized
symbolically.
All of formalized Truth is only about relations between finite
strings of characters.
This exact same Truth can be equally expressed (tokenized) as
relations between integers.
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
is entirely expressed as relations between finite strings
of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable.
No, not until you can do the first, which you can't unless you make you system "small".
All you are doing it proving you don't understand what you are talking about.
On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
a Collection is defined one or more things that have one or more
properties in common. These operations from set theory are
available: {rea, ree}
An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or formal) language L
that has been assigned the semantic property of True. (Similar to a >>>>> math Axiom).
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms the ultimate
foundation of the notion of Truth in language L.
To verify that an expression X of language L is True or False only
requires a syntactic logical consequence inference chain (formal
proof) from one or more elements of T to X or ~X.
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X)
False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X)
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since 1997) Pete Olcott
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that can be formalized
symbolically.
All of formalized Truth is only about relations between finite
strings of characters.
This exact same Truth can be equally expressed (tokenized) as
relations between integers.
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
is entirely expressed as relations between finite strings
of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable.
No, not until you can do the first, which you can't unless you make
you system "small".
All you are doing it proving you don't understand what you are talking
about.
That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't
understand what I am talking about.
I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998.
One cannot discern one's own ignorance because
this requires the missing knowledge to see the difference.
Here is the same idea in much greater depth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)
On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
a Collection is defined one or more things that have one or more
properties in common. These operations from set theory are
available: {rea, ree}
An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or formal) language L
that has been assigned the semantic property of True. (Similar to >>>>>> a math Axiom).
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms the ultimate
foundation of the notion of Truth in language L.
To verify that an expression X of language L is True or False only >>>>>> requires a syntactic logical consequence inference chain (formal
proof) from one or more elements of T to X or ~X.
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X)
False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X)
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since 1997) Pete Olcott
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that can be formalized
symbolically.
All of formalized Truth is only about relations between finite
strings of characters.
This exact same Truth can be equally expressed (tokenized) as
relations between integers.
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
is entirely expressed as relations between finite strings
of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable.
No, not until you can do the first, which you can't unless you make
you system "small".
All you are doing it proving you don't understand what you are
talking about.
That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't
understand what I am talking about.
YOU don't know what you are talking about,
I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998.
One cannot discern one's own ignorance because
this requires the missing knowledge to see the difference.
And you are just ignorance cubed.
Here is the same idea in much greater depth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)
Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and admitted it.
He wanted mathematics to be able to prove the problems, and it was shown that it could not.
It seems by failing to study the history of the last century, you are
just repeating the errors that have been discovered.
On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
a Collection is defined one or more things that have one or more >>>>>>> properties in common. These operations from set theory are
available: {rea, ree}
An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or formal) language L >>>>>>> that has been assigned the semantic property of True. (Similar to >>>>>>> a math Axiom).
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms the ultimate
foundation of the notion of Truth in language L.
To verify that an expression X of language L is True or False
only requires a syntactic logical consequence inference chain
(formal proof) from one or more elements of T to X or ~X.
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X)
False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X)
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since 1997) Pete Olcott
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that can be formalized
symbolically.
All of formalized Truth is only about relations between finite
strings of characters.
This exact same Truth can be equally expressed (tokenized) as
relations between integers.
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
is entirely expressed as relations between finite strings
of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable.
No, not until you can do the first, which you can't unless you make
you system "small".
All you are doing it proving you don't understand what you are
talking about.
That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't
understand what I am talking about.
YOU don't know what you are talking about,
I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998.
One cannot discern one's own ignorance because
this requires the missing knowledge to see the difference.
And you are just ignorance cubed.
Here is the same idea in much greater depth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)
Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and admitted it.
It sure would seem that way to everyone that did
not devote half their life to finding complete clarity.
All of computation can be construed as applying finite
string transformation rules to finite string inputs.
Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of
the scope of computation.
He wanted mathematics to be able to prove the problems, and it was
shown that it could not.
It seems by failing to study the history of the last century, you are
just repeating the errors that have been discovered.
On 1/2/26 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
a Collection is defined one or more things that have one or more >>>>>>>> properties in common. These operations from set theory are
available: {rea, ree}
An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or formal) language L >>>>>>>> that has been assigned the semantic property of True. (Similar >>>>>>>> to a math Axiom).
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms the ultimate
foundation of the notion of Truth in language L.
To verify that an expression X of language L is True or False >>>>>>>> only requires a syntactic logical consequence inference chain >>>>>>>> (formal proof) from one or more elements of T to X or ~X.
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X)
False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X)
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since 1997) Pete Olcott
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that can be formalized >>>>>>> symbolically.
All of formalized Truth is only about relations between finite
strings of characters.
This exact same Truth can be equally expressed (tokenized) as
relations between integers.
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
is entirely expressed as relations between finite strings
of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable.
No, not until you can do the first, which you can't unless you make >>>>> you system "small".
All you are doing it proving you don't understand what you are
talking about.
That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't
understand what I am talking about.
YOU don't know what you are talking about,
I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998.
One cannot discern one's own ignorance because
this requires the missing knowledge to see the difference.
And you are just ignorance cubed.
Here is the same idea in much greater depth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)
Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and admitted it.
It sure would seem that way to everyone that did
not devote half their life to finding complete clarity.
No, he was proven WRONG, and he admitted it.
All of computation can be construed as applying finite
string transformation rules to finite string inputs.
Yes, but some results are not computable.
Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of
the scope of computation.
You don't understand what you are talking about.
Yes, if it can't be described as a transformation it is out of scope.
But not all transformations are computable, as some need an infinite
number o them.
You are just proving you are nothing but a stupid liar.
He wanted mathematics to be able to prove the problems, and it was
shown that it could not.
It seems by failing to study the history of the last century, you are
just repeating the errors that have been discovered.
On 1/2/2026 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
a Collection is defined one or more things that have one or >>>>>>>>> more properties in common. These operations from set theory are >>>>>>>>> available: {rea, ree}
An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or formal) language >>>>>>>>> L that has been assigned the semantic property of True.
(Similar to a math Axiom).
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms the ultimate >>>>>>>>> foundation of the notion of Truth in language L.
To verify that an expression X of language L is True or False >>>>>>>>> only requires a syntactic logical consequence inference chain >>>>>>>>> (formal proof) from one or more elements of T to X or ~X.
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X)
False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X)
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since 1997) Pete Olcott >>>>>>>>>
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that can be formalized >>>>>>>> symbolically.
All of formalized Truth is only about relations between finite >>>>>>>> strings of characters.
This exact same Truth can be equally expressed (tokenized) as >>>>>>>> relations between integers.
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
is entirely expressed as relations between finite strings
of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable.
No, not until you can do the first, which you can't unless you
make you system "small".
All you are doing it proving you don't understand what you are
talking about.
That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't
understand what I am talking about.
YOU don't know what you are talking about,
I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998.
One cannot discern one's own ignorance because
this requires the missing knowledge to see the difference.
And you are just ignorance cubed.
Here is the same idea in much greater depth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)
Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and admitted it.
It sure would seem that way to everyone that did
not devote half their life to finding complete clarity.
No, he was proven WRONG, and he admitted it.
He may have admitted it but he was not actually
been proven wrong.
All of computation can be construed as applying finite
string transformation rules to finite string inputs.
Yes, but some results are not computable.
Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of
the scope of computation.
You don't understand what you are talking about.
Yes, if it can't be described as a transformation it is out of scope.
See that you proved that you do understand
what I am talking about.
But not all transformations are computable, as some need an infinite
number o them.
Right like Goldbach conjecture.
You are just proving you are nothing but a stupid liar.
He wanted mathematics to be able to prove the problems, and it was
shown that it could not.
It seems by failing to study the history of the last century, you
are just repeating the errors that have been discovered.
On 1/3/26 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
a Collection is defined one or more things that have one or >>>>>>>>>> more properties in common. These operations from set theory >>>>>>>>>> are available: {rea, ree}
An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or formal) language >>>>>>>>>> L that has been assigned the semantic property of True.
(Similar to a math Axiom).
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms the ultimate >>>>>>>>>> foundation of the notion of Truth in language L.
To verify that an expression X of language L is True or False >>>>>>>>>> only requires a syntactic logical consequence inference chain >>>>>>>>>> (formal proof) from one or more elements of T to X or ~X.
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X)
False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X)
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since 1997) Pete Olcott >>>>>>>>>>
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that can be
formalized symbolically.
All of formalized Truth is only about relations between finite >>>>>>>>> strings of characters.
This exact same Truth can be equally expressed (tokenized) as >>>>>>>>> relations between integers.
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
is entirely expressed as relations between finite strings
of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable.
No, not until you can do the first, which you can't unless you
make you system "small".
All you are doing it proving you don't understand what you are
talking about.
That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't
understand what I am talking about.
YOU don't know what you are talking about,
I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998.
One cannot discern one's own ignorance because
this requires the missing knowledge to see the difference.
And you are just ignorance cubed.
Here is the same idea in much greater depth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics) >>>>>>
Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and admitted it.
It sure would seem that way to everyone that did
not devote half their life to finding complete clarity.
No, he was proven WRONG, and he admitted it.
He may have admitted it but he was not actually
been proven wrong.
Sure he was.
Can you actually prove he was right?
Not just based on an argument that starts by assuming him right.
All of computation can be construed as applying finite
string transformation rules to finite string inputs.
Yes, but some results are not computable.
Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of
the scope of computation.
You don't understand what you are talking about.
Yes, if it can't be described as a transformation it is out of scope.
See that you proved that you do understand
what I am talking about.
So, you don't know what a transformation is.
Halting *IS* a transformation of input to output, just not a computable transformation.
But not all transformations are computable, as some need an infinite
number o them.
Right like Goldbach conjecture.
Right, which is an example that proves your idea doesn't work.
How can you compute if it is true from the "Meaning of its words".
The meaning of its words says that it definitely WILL be true or not, as either an even number exists that isn't the sum of two primes, or there isn't. But so far we haven't found a way to prove which.
So either something which by its meaning has a truth value doesn't have
one, or you accept that the answer might be uncomutable.
You are just proving you are nothing but a stupid liar.
He wanted mathematics to be able to prove the problems, and it was
shown that it could not.
It seems by failing to study the history of the last century, you
are just repeating the errors that have been discovered.
On 1/3/2026 8:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
a Collection is defined one or more things that have one or >>>>>>>>>>> more properties in common. These operations from set theory >>>>>>>>>>> are available: {rea, ree}
An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or formal)
language L that has been assigned the semantic property of >>>>>>>>>>> True. (Similar to a math Axiom).
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms the ultimate >>>>>>>>>>> foundation of the notion of Truth in language L.
To verify that an expression X of language L is True or False >>>>>>>>>>> only requires a syntactic logical consequence inference chain >>>>>>>>>>> (formal proof) from one or more elements of T to X or ~X. >>>>>>>>>>>
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X)
False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X)
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since 1997) Pete Olcott >>>>>>>>>>>
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that can be
formalized symbolically.
All of formalized Truth is only about relations between finite >>>>>>>>>> strings of characters.
This exact same Truth can be equally expressed (tokenized) as >>>>>>>>>> relations between integers.
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
is entirely expressed as relations between finite strings
of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable.
No, not until you can do the first, which you can't unless you >>>>>>>> make you system "small".
All you are doing it proving you don't understand what you are >>>>>>>> talking about.
That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't
understand what I am talking about.
YOU don't know what you are talking about,
I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998.
One cannot discern one's own ignorance because
this requires the missing knowledge to see the difference.
And you are just ignorance cubed.
Here is the same idea in much greater depth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics) >>>>>>>
Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and admitted it.
It sure would seem that way to everyone that did
not devote half their life to finding complete clarity.
No, he was proven WRONG, and he admitted it.
He may have admitted it but he was not actually
been proven wrong.
Sure he was.
Can you actually prove he was right?
Yes
Not just based on an argument that starts by assuming him right.
All of computation can be construed as applying finite
string transformation rules to finite string inputs.
Yes, but some results are not computable.
Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of
the scope of computation.
You don't understand what you are talking about.
Yes, if it can't be described as a transformation it is out of scope.
See that you proved that you do understand
what I am talking about.
So, you don't know what a transformation is.
Halting *IS* a transformation of input to output, just not a
computable transformation.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
The ultimate measure the actual sequence of steps that
the actual finite string input specifies to HHH(DD)
is DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C.
This is the correct finite string transformations for
HHH to apply to its actual finite string input DD.
There exists no finite string transformation rules
that HHH(DD) can apply to its input to derive the
behavior of its caller DD() executed in main.
Therefore the requirement that HHH do this is a
requirement that its outside the scope of computation.
But not all transformations are computable, as some need an infinite
number o them.
Right like Goldbach conjecture.
Right, which is an example that proves your idea doesn't work.
How can you compute if it is true from the "Meaning of its words".
The meaning of its words says that it definitely WILL be true or not,
as either an even number exists that isn't the sum of two primes, or
there isn't. But so far we haven't found a way to prove which.
So either something which by its meaning has a truth value doesn't
have one, or you accept that the answer might be uncomutable.
You are just proving you are nothing but a stupid liar.
He wanted mathematics to be able to prove the problems, and it was >>>>>> shown that it could not.
It seems by failing to study the history of the last century, you >>>>>> are just repeating the errors that have been discovered.
On 1/3/26 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
a Collection is defined one or more things that have one or >>>>>>>>>>>> more properties in common. These operations from set theory >>>>>>>>>>>> are available: {rea, ree}
An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or formal) >>>>>>>>>>>> language L that has been assigned the semantic property of >>>>>>>>>>>> True. (Similar to a math Axiom).
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms the ultimate >>>>>>>>>>>> foundation of the notion of Truth in language L.
To verify that an expression X of language L is True or >>>>>>>>>>>> False only requires a syntactic logical consequence
inference chain (formal proof) from one or more elements of >>>>>>>>>>>> T to X or ~X.
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X)
False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X) >>>>>>>>>>>>
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since 1997) Pete Olcott >>>>>>>>>>>>
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that can be
formalized symbolically.
All of formalized Truth is only about relations between >>>>>>>>>>> finite strings of characters.
This exact same Truth can be equally expressed (tokenized) as >>>>>>>>>>> relations between integers.
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
is entirely expressed as relations between finite strings
of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable.
No, not until you can do the first, which you can't unless you >>>>>>>>> make you system "small".
All you are doing it proving you don't understand what you are >>>>>>>>> talking about.
That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't
understand what I am talking about.
YOU don't know what you are talking about,
I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998.
One cannot discern one's own ignorance because
this requires the missing knowledge to see the difference.
And you are just ignorance cubed.
Here is the same idea in much greater depth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics) >>>>>>>>
Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and admitted it.
It sure would seem that way to everyone that did
not devote half their life to finding complete clarity.
No, he was proven WRONG, and he admitted it.
He may have admitted it but he was not actually
been proven wrong.
Sure he was.
Can you actually prove he was right?
Yes
Then why haven't you?
Your current arguements have all been based on bad definitions.
Not just based on an argument that starts by assuming him right.
All of computation can be construed as applying finite
string transformation rules to finite string inputs.
Yes, but some results are not computable.
Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of
the scope of computation.
You don't understand what you are talking about.
Yes, if it can't be described as a transformation it is out of scope. >>>>>
See that you proved that you do understand
what I am talking about.
So, you don't know what a transformation is.
Halting *IS* a transformation of input to output, just not a
computable transformation.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
The ultimate measure the actual sequence of steps that
the actual finite string input specifies to HHH(DD)
is DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C.
Nope. The problem is you HHH doesn't simulated its input according to
the semantics of C, in part because the input you try to give doesn't
have meaning by the semantics of C, since it deosn't define HHH.
This is the correct finite string transformations for
HHH to apply to its actual finite string input DD.
No, it shows that you logic is just unsound, as are you.
There exists no finite string transformation rules
that HHH(DD) can apply to its input to derive the
behavior of its caller DD() executed in main.
Because there is only one finite string transformation that HHH can
apply, the ones it was defined to do, and thus that can not be used as
the meaning of the string.
Therefore the requirement that HHH do this is a
requirement that its outside the scope of computation.
Nope, it shows your reasoning is outside the scope of logic.
But not all transformations are computable, as some need an
infinite number o them.
Right like Goldbach conjecture.
Right, which is an example that proves your idea doesn't work.
How can you compute if it is true from the "Meaning of its words".
The meaning of its words says that it definitely WILL be true or not,
as either an even number exists that isn't the sum of two primes, or
there isn't. But so far we haven't found a way to prove which.
So either something which by its meaning has a truth value doesn't
have one, or you accept that the answer might be uncomutable.
You are just proving you are nothing but a stupid liar.
He wanted mathematics to be able to prove the problems, and it
was shown that it could not.
It seems by failing to study the history of the last century, you >>>>>>> are just repeating the errors that have been discovered.
On 1/3/2026 1:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
a Collection is defined one or more things that have one or >>>>>>>>>>>>> more properties in common. These operations from set theory >>>>>>>>>>>>> are available: {rea, ree}
An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or formal) >>>>>>>>>>>>> language L that has been assigned the semantic property of >>>>>>>>>>>>> True. (Similar to a math Axiom).
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms the >>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate foundation of the notion of Truth in language L. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
To verify that an expression X of language L is True or >>>>>>>>>>>>> False only requires a syntactic logical consequence >>>>>>>>>>>>> inference chain (formal proof) from one or more elements of >>>>>>>>>>>>> T to X or ~X.
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X) >>>>>>>>>>>>> False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X) >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since 1997) Pete Olcott >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that can be >>>>>>>>>>>> formalized symbolically.
All of formalized Truth is only about relations between >>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings of characters.
This exact same Truth can be equally expressed (tokenized) >>>>>>>>>>>> as relations between integers.
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
is entirely expressed as relations between finite strings >>>>>>>>>>> of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable.
No, not until you can do the first, which you can't unless you >>>>>>>>>> make you system "small".
All you are doing it proving you don't understand what you are >>>>>>>>>> talking about.
That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't
understand what I am talking about.
YOU don't know what you are talking about,
I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998.
One cannot discern one's own ignorance because
this requires the missing knowledge to see the difference.
And you are just ignorance cubed.
Here is the same idea in much greater depth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)
Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and admitted it.
It sure would seem that way to everyone that did
not devote half their life to finding complete clarity.
No, he was proven WRONG, and he admitted it.
He may have admitted it but he was not actually
been proven wrong.
Sure he was.
Can you actually prove he was right?
Yes
Then why haven't you?
Your current arguements have all been based on bad definitions.
Not just based on an argument that starts by assuming him right.
All of computation can be construed as applying finite
string transformation rules to finite string inputs.
Yes, but some results are not computable.
Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of
the scope of computation.
You don't understand what you are talking about.
Yes, if it can't be described as a transformation it is out of scope. >>>>>>
See that you proved that you do understand
what I am talking about.
So, you don't know what a transformation is.
Halting *IS* a transformation of input to output, just not a
computable transformation.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
The ultimate measure the actual sequence of steps that
the actual finite string input specifies to HHH(DD)
is DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C.
Nope. The problem is you HHH doesn't simulated its input according to
the semantics of C, in part because the input you try to give doesn't
have meaning by the semantics of C, since it deosn't define HHH.
That DD is simulated by HHH according to the semantics
of C has been proven to be a sufficient definition of
HHH for 100 LLM conversations across four different LLMs.
This is the correct finite string transformations for
HHH to apply to its actual finite string input DD.
No, it shows that you logic is just unsound, as are you.
DD simulated by HHH <is> the ultimate measure of
the actual behavior that the actual input to HHH(DD)
actually specifies.
There exists no finite string transformation rules
that HHH(DD) can apply to its input to derive the
behavior of its caller DD() executed in main.
Because there is only one finite string transformation that HHH can
apply, the ones it was defined to do, and thus that can not be used as
the meaning of the string.
Therefore the requirement that HHH do this is a
requirement that its outside the scope of computation.
Nope, it shows your reasoning is outside the scope of logic.
Four different LLM systems have agreed in fifty brand
new different conversations that the halting problem
is requiring a result that is outside the scope of
finite string transformations applied to finite string
inputs.
Examining these actual dialogues conclusively proves
that all assessments are made only by applying correct
semantic entailment to standard definitions.
But not all transformations are computable, as some need an
infinite number o them.
Right like Goldbach conjecture.
Right, which is an example that proves your idea doesn't work.
How can you compute if it is true from the "Meaning of its words".
The meaning of its words says that it definitely WILL be true or
not, as either an even number exists that isn't the sum of two
primes, or there isn't. But so far we haven't found a way to prove
which.
So either something which by its meaning has a truth value doesn't
have one, or you accept that the answer might be uncomutable.
You are just proving you are nothing but a stupid liar.
He wanted mathematics to be able to prove the problems, and it >>>>>>>> was shown that it could not.
It seems by failing to study the history of the last century, >>>>>>>> you are just repeating the errors that have been discovered.
On 1/3/26 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 1:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
a Collection is defined one or more things that have one >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or more properties in common. These operations from set >>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory are available: {rea, ree}
An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or formal) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> language L that has been assigned the semantic property of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> True. (Similar to a math Axiom).
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate foundation of the notion of Truth in language L. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To verify that an expression X of language L is True or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> False only requires a syntactic logical consequence >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inference chain (formal proof) from one or more elements >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of T to X or ~X.
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since 1997) Pete Olcott >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that can be >>>>>>>>>>>>> formalized symbolically.
All of formalized Truth is only about relations between >>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings of characters.
This exact same Truth can be equally expressed (tokenized) >>>>>>>>>>>>> as relations between integers.
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
is entirely expressed as relations between finite strings >>>>>>>>>>>> of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable.
No, not until you can do the first, which you can't unless >>>>>>>>>>> you make you system "small".
All you are doing it proving you don't understand what you >>>>>>>>>>> are talking about.
That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't
understand what I am talking about.
YOU don't know what you are talking about,
I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998.
One cannot discern one's own ignorance because
this requires the missing knowledge to see the difference.
And you are just ignorance cubed.
Here is the same idea in much greater depth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)
Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and admitted it.
It sure would seem that way to everyone that did
not devote half their life to finding complete clarity.
No, he was proven WRONG, and he admitted it.
He may have admitted it but he was not actually
been proven wrong.
Sure he was.
Can you actually prove he was right?
Yes
Then why haven't you?
Your current arguements have all been based on bad definitions.
Not just based on an argument that starts by assuming him right.
All of computation can be construed as applying finite
string transformation rules to finite string inputs.
Yes, but some results are not computable.
Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of
the scope of computation.
You don't understand what you are talking about.
Yes, if it can't be described as a transformation it is out of
scope.
See that you proved that you do understand
what I am talking about.
So, you don't know what a transformation is.
Halting *IS* a transformation of input to output, just not a
computable transformation.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
The ultimate measure the actual sequence of steps that
the actual finite string input specifies to HHH(DD)
is DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C.
Nope. The problem is you HHH doesn't simulated its input according to
the semantics of C, in part because the input you try to give doesn't
have meaning by the semantics of C, since it deosn't define HHH.
That DD is simulated by HHH according to the semantics
of C has been proven to be a sufficient definition of
HHH for 100 LLM conversations across four different LLMs.
WHich just shows that those LLMs are wrong.
As if HHH DOES correctly simulate the DD+HHH by the rules of C, then it
can never stop, as correct simulations never stop.
Since your HHH does abort, it doesn't do the simulation you claim, and
thus your premise is just a lie.
This is the correct finite string transformations for
HHH to apply to its actual finite string input DD.
No, it shows that you logic is just unsound, as are you.
DD simulated by HHH <is> the ultimate measure of
the actual behavior that the actual input to HHH(DD)
actually specifies.
Not when HHH doesn't do a correct simulation.
That just means your world is based on lying.
There exists no finite string transformation rules
that HHH(DD) can apply to its input to derive the
behavior of its caller DD() executed in main.
Because there is only one finite string transformation that HHH can
apply, the ones it was defined to do, and thus that can not be used
as the meaning of the string.
Therefore the requirement that HHH do this is a
requirement that its outside the scope of computation.
Nope, it shows your reasoning is outside the scope of logic.
Four different LLM systems have agreed in fifty brand
new different conversations that the halting problem
is requiring a result that is outside the scope of
finite string transformations applied to finite string
inputs.
Examining these actual dialogues conclusively proves
that all assessments are made only by applying correct
semantic entailment to standard definitions.
Nope, just shows they are smarter than you, and have gotten you to
belive the lies they give you because you lied to them.
Since they actually have no intelegence, that shows your intelegence.
But not all transformations are computable, as some need an
infinite number o them.
Right like Goldbach conjecture.
Right, which is an example that proves your idea doesn't work.
How can you compute if it is true from the "Meaning of its words".
The meaning of its words says that it definitely WILL be true or
not, as either an even number exists that isn't the sum of two
primes, or there isn't. But so far we haven't found a way to prove
which.
So either something which by its meaning has a truth value doesn't
have one, or you accept that the answer might be uncomutable.
You are just proving you are nothing but a stupid liar.
He wanted mathematics to be able to prove the problems, and it >>>>>>>>> was shown that it could not.
It seems by failing to study the history of the last century, >>>>>>>>> you are just repeating the errors that have been discovered. >>>>>>>>>
On 1/3/2026 4:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 1:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
a Collection is defined one or more things that have one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or more properties in common. These operations from set >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory are available: {rea, ree}
An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or formal) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language L that has been assigned the semantic property >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of True. (Similar to a math Axiom).
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate foundation of the notion of Truth in language L. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To verify that an expression X of language L is True or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False only requires a syntactic logical consequence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inference chain (formal proof) from one or more elements >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of T to X or ~X.
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since 1997) Pete Olcott >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> formalized symbolically.
All of formalized Truth is only about relations between >>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings of characters.
This exact same Truth can be equally expressed (tokenized) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as relations between integers.
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>> is entirely expressed as relations between finite strings >>>>>>>>>>>>> of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>> reliably computable.
No, not until you can do the first, which you can't unless >>>>>>>>>>>> you make you system "small".
All you are doing it proving you don't understand what you >>>>>>>>>>>> are talking about.
That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't
understand what I am talking about.
YOU don't know what you are talking about,
And you are just ignorance cubed.
I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998.
One cannot discern one's own ignorance because
this requires the missing knowledge to see the difference. >>>>>>>>>>
Here is the same idea in much greater depth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)
Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and admitted it.
It sure would seem that way to everyone that did
not devote half their life to finding complete clarity.
No, he was proven WRONG, and he admitted it.
He may have admitted it but he was not actually
been proven wrong.
Sure he was.
Can you actually prove he was right?
Yes
Then why haven't you?
Your current arguements have all been based on bad definitions.
Not just based on an argument that starts by assuming him right.
All of computation can be construed as applying finite
string transformation rules to finite string inputs.
Yes, but some results are not computable.
Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of
the scope of computation.
You don't understand what you are talking about.
Yes, if it can't be described as a transformation it is out of >>>>>>>> scope.
See that you proved that you do understand
what I am talking about.
So, you don't know what a transformation is.
Halting *IS* a transformation of input to output, just not a
computable transformation.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
The ultimate measure the actual sequence of steps that
the actual finite string input specifies to HHH(DD)
is DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C.
Nope. The problem is you HHH doesn't simulated its input according
to the semantics of C, in part because the input you try to give
doesn't have meaning by the semantics of C, since it deosn't define
HHH.
That DD is simulated by HHH according to the semantics
of C has been proven to be a sufficient definition of
HHH for 100 LLM conversations across four different LLMs.
WHich just shows that those LLMs are wrong.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
If you could manage to pay 100% complete attention
(this might actually be completely impossible)
You would see that no alternative better finite
string transformation rules for HHH can possibly exist.
As if HHH DOES correctly simulate the DD+HHH by the rules of C, then
it can never stop, as correct simulations never stop.
Since your HHH does abort, it doesn't do the simulation you claim, and
thus your premise is just a lie.
This is the correct finite string transformations for
HHH to apply to its actual finite string input DD.
No, it shows that you logic is just unsound, as are you.
DD simulated by HHH <is> the ultimate measure of
the actual behavior that the actual input to HHH(DD)
actually specifies.
Not when HHH doesn't do a correct simulation.
That just means your world is based on lying.
There exists no finite string transformation rules
that HHH(DD) can apply to its input to derive the
behavior of its caller DD() executed in main.
Because there is only one finite string transformation that HHH can
apply, the ones it was defined to do, and thus that can not be used
as the meaning of the string.
Therefore the requirement that HHH do this is a
requirement that its outside the scope of computation.
Nope, it shows your reasoning is outside the scope of logic.
Four different LLM systems have agreed in fifty brand
new different conversations that the halting problem
is requiring a result that is outside the scope of
finite string transformations applied to finite string
inputs.
Examining these actual dialogues conclusively proves
that all assessments are made only by applying correct
semantic entailment to standard definitions.
Nope, just shows they are smarter than you, and have gotten you to
belive the lies they give you because you lied to them.
Since they actually have no intelegence, that shows your intelegence.
But not all transformations are computable, as some need an
infinite number o them.
Right like Goldbach conjecture.
Right, which is an example that proves your idea doesn't work.
How can you compute if it is true from the "Meaning of its words". >>>>>>
The meaning of its words says that it definitely WILL be true or
not, as either an even number exists that isn't the sum of two
primes, or there isn't. But so far we haven't found a way to prove >>>>>> which.
So either something which by its meaning has a truth value doesn't >>>>>> have one, or you accept that the answer might be uncomutable.
You are just proving you are nothing but a stupid liar.
He wanted mathematics to be able to prove the problems, and it >>>>>>>>>> was shown that it could not.
It seems by failing to study the history of the last century, >>>>>>>>>> you are just repeating the errors that have been discovered. >>>>>>>>>>
On 1/3/26 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 4:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 1:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
a Collection is defined one or more things that have one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or more properties in common. These operations from set >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory are available: {rea, ree}
An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or formal) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language L that has been assigned the semantic property >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of True. (Similar to a math Axiom).
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate foundation of the notion of Truth in language L. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To verify that an expression X of language L is True or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False only requires a syntactic logical consequence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inference chain (formal proof) from one or more elements >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of T to X or ~X.
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since 1997) Pete >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formalized symbolically.
All of formalized Truth is only about relations between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings of characters.
This exact same Truth can be equally expressed
(tokenized) as relations between integers.
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is entirely expressed as relations between finite strings >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliably computable.
No, not until you can do the first, which you can't unless >>>>>>>>>>>>> you make you system "small".
All you are doing it proving you don't understand what you >>>>>>>>>>>>> are talking about.
That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't
understand what I am talking about.
YOU don't know what you are talking about,
And you are just ignorance cubed.
I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998.
One cannot discern one's own ignorance because
this requires the missing knowledge to see the difference. >>>>>>>>>>>
Here is the same idea in much greater depth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)
Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and admitted it.
It sure would seem that way to everyone that did
not devote half their life to finding complete clarity.
No, he was proven WRONG, and he admitted it.
He may have admitted it but he was not actually
been proven wrong.
Sure he was.
Can you actually prove he was right?
Yes
Then why haven't you?
Your current arguements have all been based on bad definitions.
Not just based on an argument that starts by assuming him right. >>>>>>>
All of computation can be construed as applying finite
string transformation rules to finite string inputs.
Yes, but some results are not computable.
Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of
the scope of computation.
You don't understand what you are talking about.
Yes, if it can't be described as a transformation it is out of >>>>>>>>> scope.
See that you proved that you do understand
what I am talking about.
So, you don't know what a transformation is.
Halting *IS* a transformation of input to output, just not a
computable transformation.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
The ultimate measure the actual sequence of steps that
the actual finite string input specifies to HHH(DD)
is DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C.
Nope. The problem is you HHH doesn't simulated its input according
to the semantics of C, in part because the input you try to give
doesn't have meaning by the semantics of C, since it deosn't define >>>>> HHH.
That DD is simulated by HHH according to the semantics
of C has been proven to be a sufficient definition of
HHH for 100 LLM conversations across four different LLMs.
WHich just shows that those LLMs are wrong.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Yes, that is what they CAN do.
If you could manage to pay 100% complete attention
(this might actually be completely impossible)
You would see that no alternative better finite
string transformation rules for HHH can possibly exist.
For a particular HHH, there is only one possible transform, the one that
it is programmed.
On 1/3/2026 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 4:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 1:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
a Collection is defined one or more things that have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or more properties in common. These operations from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set theory are available: {rea, ree}
An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or formal) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language L that has been assigned the semantic property >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of True. (Similar to a math Axiom).
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate foundation of the notion of Truth in language L. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To verify that an expression X of language L is True or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False only requires a syntactic logical consequence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inference chain (formal proof) from one or more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elements of T to X or ~X.
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since 1997) Pete >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formalized symbolically.
All of formalized Truth is only about relations between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings of characters.
This exact same Truth can be equally expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (tokenized) as relations between integers.
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is entirely expressed as relations between finite strings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliably computable.
No, not until you can do the first, which you can't unless >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you make you system "small".
All you are doing it proving you don't understand what you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are talking about.
That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't
understand what I am talking about.
YOU don't know what you are talking about,
And you are just ignorance cubed.
I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998.
One cannot discern one's own ignorance because
this requires the missing knowledge to see the difference. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is the same idea in much greater depth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)
Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and admitted it.
It sure would seem that way to everyone that did
not devote half their life to finding complete clarity.
No, he was proven WRONG, and he admitted it.
He may have admitted it but he was not actually
been proven wrong.
Sure he was.
Can you actually prove he was right?
Yes
Then why haven't you?
Your current arguements have all been based on bad definitions.
Not just based on an argument that starts by assuming him right. >>>>>>>>
All of computation can be construed as applying finite
string transformation rules to finite string inputs.
Yes, but some results are not computable.
Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of
the scope of computation.
You don't understand what you are talking about.
Yes, if it can't be described as a transformation it is out of >>>>>>>>>> scope.
See that you proved that you do understand
what I am talking about.
So, you don't know what a transformation is.
Halting *IS* a transformation of input to output, just not a
computable transformation.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
The ultimate measure the actual sequence of steps that
the actual finite string input specifies to HHH(DD)
is DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C.
Nope. The problem is you HHH doesn't simulated its input according >>>>>> to the semantics of C, in part because the input you try to give
doesn't have meaning by the semantics of C, since it deosn't
define HHH.
That DD is simulated by HHH according to the semantics
of C has been proven to be a sufficient definition of
HHH for 100 LLM conversations across four different LLMs.
WHich just shows that those LLMs are wrong.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Yes, that is what they CAN do.
If you could manage to pay 100% complete attention
(this might actually be completely impossible)
You would see that no alternative better finite
string transformation rules for HHH can possibly exist.
For a particular HHH, there is only one possible transform, the one
that it is programmed.
For every HHH/DD pair that can possibly exist
the halting problem requirements exceed the
scope of the possible finite string transformations
that HHH can apply to its input.
On 1/3/26 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 4:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 1:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:No, he was proven WRONG, and he admitted it.
On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
a Collection is defined one or more things that have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or more properties in common. These operations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from set theory are available: {rea, ree}
An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or formal) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language L that has been assigned the semantic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property of True. (Similar to a math Axiom). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate foundation of the notion of Truth in language L. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To verify that an expression X of language L is True >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or False only requires a syntactic logical consequence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inference chain (formal proof) from one or more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elements of T to X or ~X.
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since 1997) Pete >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formalized symbolically.
All of formalized Truth is only about relations between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings of characters.
This exact same Truth can be equally expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (tokenized) as relations between integers.
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is entirely expressed as relations between finite strings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliably computable.
No, not until you can do the first, which you can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless you make you system "small".
All you are doing it proving you don't understand what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are talking about.
That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what I am talking about.
YOU don't know what you are talking about,
And you are just ignorance cubed.
I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998.
One cannot discern one's own ignorance because
this requires the missing knowledge to see the difference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is the same idea in much greater depth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)
Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and admitted it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
It sure would seem that way to everyone that did
not devote half their life to finding complete clarity. >>>>>>>>>>>
He may have admitted it but he was not actually
been proven wrong.
Sure he was.
Can you actually prove he was right?
Yes
Then why haven't you?
Your current arguements have all been based on bad definitions.
Not just based on an argument that starts by assuming him right. >>>>>>>>>
All of computation can be construed as applying finite >>>>>>>>>>>> string transformation rules to finite string inputs.
Yes, but some results are not computable.
Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of
the scope of computation.
You don't understand what you are talking about.
Yes, if it can't be described as a transformation it is out >>>>>>>>>>> of scope.
See that you proved that you do understand
what I am talking about.
So, you don't know what a transformation is.
Halting *IS* a transformation of input to output, just not a >>>>>>>>> computable transformation.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
The ultimate measure the actual sequence of steps that
the actual finite string input specifies to HHH(DD)
is DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C.
Nope. The problem is you HHH doesn't simulated its input
according to the semantics of C, in part because the input you
try to give doesn't have meaning by the semantics of C, since it >>>>>>> deosn't define HHH.
That DD is simulated by HHH according to the semantics
of C has been proven to be a sufficient definition of
HHH for 100 LLM conversations across four different LLMs.
WHich just shows that those LLMs are wrong.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Yes, that is what they CAN do.
If you could manage to pay 100% complete attention
(this might actually be completely impossible)
You would see that no alternative better finite
string transformation rules for HHH can possibly exist.
For a particular HHH, there is only one possible transform, the one
that it is programmed.
For every HHH/DD pair that can possibly exist
the halting problem requirements exceed the
scope of the possible finite string transformations
that HHH can apply to its input.
Nope.
As for every HHH/DD pair, there is a different DD which has a definite behavior, and thus is within the scope of a problem in Computing.
On 1/3/2026 7:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 4:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 1:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:No, he was proven WRONG, and he admitted it.
On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Collection is defined one or more things that have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or more properties in common. These operations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from set theory are available: {rea, ree} >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or formal) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language L that has been assigned the semantic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property of True. (Similar to a math Axiom). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate foundation of the notion of Truth in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language L.
To verify that an expression X of language L is True >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or False only requires a syntactic logical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consequence inference chain (formal proof) from one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or more elements of T to X or ~X.
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since 1997) Pete >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formalized symbolically.
All of formalized Truth is only about relations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between finite strings of characters.
This exact same Truth can be equally expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (tokenized) as relations between integers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is entirely expressed as relations between finite strings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliably computable.
No, not until you can do the first, which you can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless you make you system "small".
All you are doing it proving you don't understand what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are talking about.
That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what I am talking about.
YOU don't know what you are talking about,
And you are just ignorance cubed.
I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One cannot discern one's own ignorance because
this requires the missing knowledge to see the difference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is the same idea in much greater depth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)
Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and admitted it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It sure would seem that way to everyone that did
not devote half their life to finding complete clarity. >>>>>>>>>>>>
He may have admitted it but he was not actually
been proven wrong.
Sure he was.
Can you actually prove he was right?
Yes
Then why haven't you?
Your current arguements have all been based on bad definitions. >>>>>>>>
Not just based on an argument that starts by assuming him right. >>>>>>>>>>
All of computation can be construed as applying finite >>>>>>>>>>>>> string transformation rules to finite string inputs.
Yes, but some results are not computable.
Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of
the scope of computation.
You don't understand what you are talking about.
Yes, if it can't be described as a transformation it is out >>>>>>>>>>>> of scope.
See that you proved that you do understand
what I am talking about.
So, you don't know what a transformation is.
Halting *IS* a transformation of input to output, just not a >>>>>>>>>> computable transformation.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
The ultimate measure the actual sequence of steps that
the actual finite string input specifies to HHH(DD)
is DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C.
Nope. The problem is you HHH doesn't simulated its input
according to the semantics of C, in part because the input you >>>>>>>> try to give doesn't have meaning by the semantics of C, since it >>>>>>>> deosn't define HHH.
That DD is simulated by HHH according to the semantics
of C has been proven to be a sufficient definition of
HHH for 100 LLM conversations across four different LLMs.
WHich just shows that those LLMs are wrong.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Yes, that is what they CAN do.
If you could manage to pay 100% complete attention
(this might actually be completely impossible)
You would see that no alternative better finite
string transformation rules for HHH can possibly exist.
For a particular HHH, there is only one possible transform, the one
that it is programmed.
For every HHH/DD pair that can possibly exist
the halting problem requirements exceed the
scope of the possible finite string transformations
that HHH can apply to its input.
Nope.
As for every HHH/DD pair, there is a different DD which has a definite
behavior, and thus is within the scope of a problem in Computing.
For every instance of pathological self-reference
HHH/DD pairs the halting problem requires behavior
that is outside of the scope of computation.
On 1/3/26 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 7:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 4:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 1:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:No, he was proven WRONG, and he admitted it.
On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Collection is defined one or more things that have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or more properties in common. These operations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from set theory are available: {rea, ree} >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal) language L that has been assigned the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic property of True. (Similar to a math Axiom). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate foundation of the notion of Truth in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language L.
To verify that an expression X of language L is True >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or False only requires a syntactic logical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consequence inference chain (formal proof) from one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or more elements of T to X or ~X.
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since 1997) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pete Olcott
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formalized symbolically.
All of formalized Truth is only about relations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between finite strings of characters.
This exact same Truth can be equally expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (tokenized) as relations between integers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is entirely expressed as relations between finite strings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliably computable.
No, not until you can do the first, which you can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless you make you system "small".
All you are doing it proving you don't understand what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are talking about.
That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what I am talking about.
YOU don't know what you are talking about,
And you are just ignorance cubed.
I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One cannot discern one's own ignorance because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this requires the missing knowledge to see the difference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is the same idea in much greater depth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)
Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and admitted it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It sure would seem that way to everyone that did
not devote half their life to finding complete clarity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
He may have admitted it but he was not actually
been proven wrong.
Sure he was.
Can you actually prove he was right?
Yes
Then why haven't you?
Your current arguements have all been based on bad definitions. >>>>>>>>>
Not just based on an argument that starts by assuming him right. >>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, but some results are not computable.
All of computation can be construed as applying finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>> string transformation rules to finite string inputs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of
the scope of computation.
You don't understand what you are talking about.
Yes, if it can't be described as a transformation it is out >>>>>>>>>>>>> of scope.
See that you proved that you do understand
what I am talking about.
So, you don't know what a transformation is.
Halting *IS* a transformation of input to output, just not a >>>>>>>>>>> computable transformation.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
The ultimate measure the actual sequence of steps that
the actual finite string input specifies to HHH(DD)
is DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C.
Nope. The problem is you HHH doesn't simulated its input
according to the semantics of C, in part because the input you >>>>>>>>> try to give doesn't have meaning by the semantics of C, since >>>>>>>>> it deosn't define HHH.
That DD is simulated by HHH according to the semantics
of C has been proven to be a sufficient definition of
HHH for 100 LLM conversations across four different LLMs.
WHich just shows that those LLMs are wrong.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Yes, that is what they CAN do.
If you could manage to pay 100% complete attention
(this might actually be completely impossible)
You would see that no alternative better finite
string transformation rules for HHH can possibly exist.
For a particular HHH, there is only one possible transform, the one >>>>> that it is programmed.
For every HHH/DD pair that can possibly exist
the halting problem requirements exceed the
scope of the possible finite string transformations
that HHH can apply to its input.
Nope.
As for every HHH/DD pair, there is a different DD which has a
definite behavior, and thus is within the scope of a problem in
Computing.
For every instance of pathological self-reference
HHH/DD pairs the halting problem requires behavior
that is outside of the scope of computation.
Nope.
Where do you get that from?
The behavior of DD is derived form string transforms of the input, which show that (for your HHHs that answer) will halt.
THus, it isn't outside the scope of computation, just outside your scope--
of understanding.
On 1/3/2026 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 7:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 4:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 1:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:No, he was proven WRONG, and he admitted it.
On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Collection is defined one or more things that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have one or more properties in common. These >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations from set theory are available: {rea, ree} >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal) language L that has been assigned the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic property of True. (Similar to a math Axiom). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate foundation of the notion of Truth in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language L.
To verify that an expression X of language L is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True or False only requires a syntactic logical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consequence inference chain (formal proof) from one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or more elements of T to X or ~X.
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since 1997) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pete Olcott
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be formalized symbolically.
All of formalized Truth is only about relations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between finite strings of characters.
This exact same Truth can be equally expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (tokenized) as relations between integers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is entirely expressed as relations between finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings
of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliably computable.
No, not until you can do the first, which you can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless you make you system "small".
All you are doing it proving you don't understand what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are talking about.
That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what I am talking about.
YOU don't know what you are talking about,
And you are just ignorance cubed.
I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One cannot discern one's own ignorance because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this requires the missing knowledge to see the difference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is the same idea in much greater depth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)
Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and admitted it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It sure would seem that way to everyone that did >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not devote half their life to finding complete clarity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He may have admitted it but he was not actually
been proven wrong.
Sure he was.
Can you actually prove he was right?
Yes
Then why haven't you?
Your current arguements have all been based on bad definitions. >>>>>>>>>>
Not just based on an argument that starts by assuming him >>>>>>>>>>>> right.
Yes, but some results are not computable.
All of computation can be construed as applying finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string transformation rules to finite string inputs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the scope of computation.
You don't understand what you are talking about.
Yes, if it can't be described as a transformation it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of scope.
See that you proved that you do understand
what I am talking about.
So, you don't know what a transformation is.
Halting *IS* a transformation of input to output, just not a >>>>>>>>>>>> computable transformation.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
The ultimate measure the actual sequence of steps that
the actual finite string input specifies to HHH(DD)
is DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C.
Nope. The problem is you HHH doesn't simulated its input
according to the semantics of C, in part because the input you >>>>>>>>>> try to give doesn't have meaning by the semantics of C, since >>>>>>>>>> it deosn't define HHH.
That DD is simulated by HHH according to the semantics
of C has been proven to be a sufficient definition of
HHH for 100 LLM conversations across four different LLMs.
WHich just shows that those LLMs are wrong.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Yes, that is what they CAN do.
If you could manage to pay 100% complete attention
(this might actually be completely impossible)
You would see that no alternative better finite
string transformation rules for HHH can possibly exist.
For a particular HHH, there is only one possible transform, the
one that it is programmed.
For every HHH/DD pair that can possibly exist
the halting problem requirements exceed the
scope of the possible finite string transformations
that HHH can apply to its input.
Nope.
As for every HHH/DD pair, there is a different DD which has a
definite behavior, and thus is within the scope of a problem in
Computing.
For every instance of pathological self-reference
HHH/DD pairs the halting problem requires behavior
that is outside of the scope of computation.
Nope.
Where do you get that from?
The behavior of DD is derived form string transforms of the input,
which show that (for your HHHs that answer) will halt.
*Your ADD must me much worse than I thought*
There are no finite string transformations
that HHH can apply to its input DD that would
show that DD reaches its own final halt state.
THus, it isn't outside the scope of computation, just outside your
scope of understanding.
On 1/3/26 9:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 7:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 4:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 1:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:No, he was proven WRONG, and he admitted it.
On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Collection is defined one or more things that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have one or more properties in common. These >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations from set theory are available: {rea, ree} >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal) language L that has been assigned the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic property of True. (Similar to a math Axiom). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ultimate foundation of the notion of Truth in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language L.
To verify that an expression X of language L is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True or False only requires a syntactic logical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consequence inference chain (formal proof) from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or more elements of T to X or ~X. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since 1997) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pete Olcott
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be formalized symbolically.
All of formalized Truth is only about relations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between finite strings of characters. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This exact same Truth can be equally expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (tokenized) as relations between integers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is entirely expressed as relations between finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings
of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliably computable.
No, not until you can do the first, which you can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless you make you system "small".
All you are doing it proving you don't understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you are talking about.
That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what I am talking about.
YOU don't know what you are talking about,
I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One cannot discern one's own ignorance because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this requires the missing knowledge to see the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference.
And you are just ignorance cubed.
Here is the same idea in much greater depth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)
Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and admitted it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It sure would seem that way to everyone that did >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not devote half their life to finding complete clarity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He may have admitted it but he was not actually
been proven wrong.
Sure he was.
Can you actually prove he was right?
Yes
Then why haven't you?
Your current arguements have all been based on bad definitions. >>>>>>>>>>>
Nope. The problem is you HHH doesn't simulated its input >>>>>>>>>>> according to the semantics of C, in part because the input >>>>>>>>>>> you try to give doesn't have meaning by the semantics of C, >>>>>>>>>>> since it deosn't define HHH.
Not just based on an argument that starts by assuming him >>>>>>>>>>>>> right.
Yes, but some results are not computable.
All of computation can be construed as applying finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string transformation rules to finite string inputs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the scope of computation.
You don't understand what you are talking about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, if it can't be described as a transformation it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of scope.
See that you proved that you do understand
what I am talking about.
So, you don't know what a transformation is.
Halting *IS* a transformation of input to output, just not >>>>>>>>>>>>> a computable transformation.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
The ultimate measure the actual sequence of steps that >>>>>>>>>>>> the actual finite string input specifies to HHH(DD)
is DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C. >>>>>>>>>>>
That DD is simulated by HHH according to the semantics
of C has been proven to be a sufficient definition of
HHH for 100 LLM conversations across four different LLMs.
WHich just shows that those LLMs are wrong.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Yes, that is what they CAN do.
If you could manage to pay 100% complete attention
(this might actually be completely impossible)
You would see that no alternative better finite
string transformation rules for HHH can possibly exist.
For a particular HHH, there is only one possible transform, the >>>>>>> one that it is programmed.
For every HHH/DD pair that can possibly exist
the halting problem requirements exceed the
scope of the possible finite string transformations
that HHH can apply to its input.
Nope.
As for every HHH/DD pair, there is a different DD which has a
definite behavior, and thus is within the scope of a problem in
Computing.
For every instance of pathological self-reference
HHH/DD pairs the halting problem requires behavior
that is outside of the scope of computation.
Nope.
Where do you get that from?
The behavior of DD is derived form string transforms of the input,
which show that (for your HHHs that answer) will halt.
*Your ADD must me much worse than I thought*
There are no finite string transformations
that HHH can apply to its input DD that would
show that DD reaches its own final halt state.
But the definition is not "that HHH can do", and such a definition is absurd, as HHH does only one transform.
There IS the transform of a UTM, which shows that DD halts.
All you are doing is proving your stupidity,
THus, it isn't outside the scope of computation, just outside your
scope of understanding.
On 1/3/2026 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 9:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 7:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 4:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 1:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:WHich just shows that those LLMs are wrong.
On 1/3/26 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:No, he was proven WRONG, and he admitted it.
On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Collection is defined one or more things that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have one or more properties in common. These >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations from set theory are available: {rea, ree} >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal) language L that has been assigned the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic property of True. (Similar to a math >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Axiom).
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ultimate foundation of the notion of Truth in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language L.
To verify that an expression X of language L is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True or False only requires a syntactic logical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consequence inference chain (formal proof) from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or more elements of T to X or ~X. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since 1997) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pete Olcott
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be formalized symbolically.
All of formalized Truth is only about relations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between finite strings of characters. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This exact same Truth can be equally expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (tokenized) as relations between integers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is entirely expressed as relations between finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings
of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliably computable.
No, not until you can do the first, which you can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless you make you system "small".
All you are doing it proving you don't understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you are talking about.
That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what I am talking about.
YOU don't know what you are talking about, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One cannot discern one's own ignorance because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this requires the missing knowledge to see the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference.
And you are just ignorance cubed.
Here is the same idea in much greater depth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)
Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and admitted it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It sure would seem that way to everyone that did >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not devote half their life to finding complete clarity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He may have admitted it but he was not actually
been proven wrong.
Sure he was.
Can you actually prove he was right?
Yes
Then why haven't you?
Your current arguements have all been based on bad definitions. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Nope. The problem is you HHH doesn't simulated its input >>>>>>>>>>>> according to the semantics of C, in part because the input >>>>>>>>>>>> you try to give doesn't have meaning by the semantics of C, >>>>>>>>>>>> since it deosn't define HHH.
Not just based on an argument that starts by assuming him >>>>>>>>>>>>>> right.
Yes, but some results are not computable.
All of computation can be construed as applying finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string transformation rules to finite string inputs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the scope of computation.
You don't understand what you are talking about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, if it can't be described as a transformation it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of scope.
See that you proved that you do understand
what I am talking about.
So, you don't know what a transformation is.
Halting *IS* a transformation of input to output, just not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a computable transformation.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
The ultimate measure the actual sequence of steps that >>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual finite string input specifies to HHH(DD)
is DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C. >>>>>>>>>>>>
That DD is simulated by HHH according to the semantics
of C has been proven to be a sufficient definition of
HHH for 100 LLM conversations across four different LLMs. >>>>>>>>>>
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Yes, that is what they CAN do.
If you could manage to pay 100% complete attention
(this might actually be completely impossible)
You would see that no alternative better finite
string transformation rules for HHH can possibly exist.
For a particular HHH, there is only one possible transform, the >>>>>>>> one that it is programmed.
For every HHH/DD pair that can possibly exist
the halting problem requirements exceed the
scope of the possible finite string transformations
that HHH can apply to its input.
Nope.
As for every HHH/DD pair, there is a different DD which has a
definite behavior, and thus is within the scope of a problem in
Computing.
For every instance of pathological self-reference
HHH/DD pairs the halting problem requires behavior
that is outside of the scope of computation.
Nope.
Where do you get that from?
The behavior of DD is derived form string transforms of the input,
which show that (for your HHHs that answer) will halt.
*Your ADD must me much worse than I thought*
There are no finite string transformations
that HHH can apply to its input DD that would
show that DD reaches its own final halt state.
But the definition is not "that HHH can do", and such a definition is
absurd, as HHH does only one transform.
HHH(DD) cannot possibly == UTM(DD)
proving that the halting problem requirement
is outside the scope of computation.
It the same dirty trick that the Liar Paradox
has been playing for thousands of years.
There IS the transform of a UTM, which shows that DD halts.
All you are doing is proving your stupidity,
THus, it isn't outside the scope of computation, just outside your
scope of understanding.
On 1/3/26 9:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 9:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 7:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 4:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 1:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:WHich just shows that those LLMs are wrong.
On 1/3/26 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:No, he was proven WRONG, and he admitted it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Collection is defined one or more things that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have one or more properties in common. These >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations from set theory are available: {rea, ree} >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal) language L that has been assigned the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic property of True. (Similar to a math >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Axiom).
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ultimate foundation of the notion of Truth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in language L.
To verify that an expression X of language L is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True or False only requires a syntactic logical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consequence inference chain (formal proof) from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or more elements of T to X or ~X. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since 1997) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pete Olcott
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be formalized symbolically.
All of formalized Truth is only about relations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between finite strings of characters. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This exact same Truth can be equally expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (tokenized) as relations between integers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is entirely expressed as relations between finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings
of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliably computable.
No, not until you can do the first, which you can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless you make you system "small".
All you are doing it proving you don't understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you are talking about.
That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what I am talking about.
YOU don't know what you are talking about, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One cannot discern one's own ignorance because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this requires the missing knowledge to see the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference.
And you are just ignorance cubed.
Here is the same idea in much greater depth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)
Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and admitted it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It sure would seem that way to everyone that did >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not devote half their life to finding complete clarity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He may have admitted it but he was not actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been proven wrong.
Sure he was.
Can you actually prove he was right?
Yes
Then why haven't you?
Your current arguements have all been based on bad
definitions.
Nope. The problem is you HHH doesn't simulated its input >>>>>>>>>>>>> according to the semantics of C, in part because the input >>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to give doesn't have meaning by the semantics of C, >>>>>>>>>>>>> since it deosn't define HHH.
Not just based on an argument that starts by assuming him >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right.
Yes, but some results are not computable.
All of computation can be construed as applying finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string transformation rules to finite string inputs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the scope of computation.
You don't understand what you are talking about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, if it can't be described as a transformation it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of scope.
See that you proved that you do understand
what I am talking about.
So, you don't know what a transformation is.
Halting *IS* a transformation of input to output, just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a computable transformation.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
The ultimate measure the actual sequence of steps that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual finite string input specifies to HHH(DD) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
That DD is simulated by HHH according to the semantics >>>>>>>>>>>> of C has been proven to be a sufficient definition of
HHH for 100 LLM conversations across four different LLMs. >>>>>>>>>>>
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Yes, that is what they CAN do.
If you could manage to pay 100% complete attention
(this might actually be completely impossible)
You would see that no alternative better finite
string transformation rules for HHH can possibly exist.
For a particular HHH, there is only one possible transform, the >>>>>>>>> one that it is programmed.
For every HHH/DD pair that can possibly exist
the halting problem requirements exceed the
scope of the possible finite string transformations
that HHH can apply to its input.
Nope.
As for every HHH/DD pair, there is a different DD which has a
definite behavior, and thus is within the scope of a problem in >>>>>>> Computing.
For every instance of pathological self-reference
HHH/DD pairs the halting problem requires behavior
that is outside of the scope of computation.
Nope.
Where do you get that from?
The behavior of DD is derived form string transforms of the input,
which show that (for your HHHs that answer) will halt.
*Your ADD must me much worse than I thought*
There are no finite string transformations
that HHH can apply to its input DD that would
show that DD reaches its own final halt state.
But the definition is not "that HHH can do", and such a definition is
absurd, as HHH does only one transform.
HHH(DD) cannot possibly == UTM(DD)
proving that the halting problem requirement
is outside the scope of computation.
But the problem is the DDs give to both are the same, so mean the same.
Your problem is you don't know what the words you are using mean,
becasue, as you have admited, you never bothered to learn their meaning,
and are using your own lies.
It the same dirty trick that the Liar Paradox
has been playing for thousands of years.
No, it just show how little you know of what you talk.
Your stupidity just shines bright to the world.
There IS the transform of a UTM, which shows that DD halts.
All you are doing is proving your stupidity,
THus, it isn't outside the scope of computation, just outside your
scope of understanding.
On 1/3/2026 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 9:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 9:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 7:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 4:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 1:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:WHich just shows that those LLMs are wrong.
On 1/3/26 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/2/26 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:No, he was proven WRONG, and he admitted it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Collection is defined one or more things that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have one or more properties in common. These >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations from set theory are available: {rea, ree} >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal) language L that has been assigned the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic property of True. (Similar to a math >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Axiom).
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ultimate foundation of the notion of Truth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in language L.
To verify that an expression X of language L is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True or False only requires a syntactic logical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consequence inference chain (formal proof) from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or more elements of T to X or ~X. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X)
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1997) Pete Olcott
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be formalized symbolically. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All of formalized Truth is only about relations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between finite strings of characters. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This exact same Truth can be equally expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (tokenized) as relations between integers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is entirely expressed as relations between finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings
of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliably computable.
No, not until you can do the first, which you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't unless you make you system "small". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All you are doing it proving you don't understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you are talking about.
That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what I am talking about.
YOU don't know what you are talking about, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One cannot discern one's own ignorance because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this requires the missing knowledge to see the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference.
And you are just ignorance cubed.
Here is the same idea in much greater depth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and admitted it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It sure would seem that way to everyone that did >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not devote half their life to finding complete clarity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He may have admitted it but he was not actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been proven wrong.
Sure he was.
Can you actually prove he was right?
Yes
Then why haven't you?
Your current arguements have all been based on bad >>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
Nope. The problem is you HHH doesn't simulated its input >>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to the semantics of C, in part because the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to give doesn't have meaning by the semantics of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> C, since it deosn't define HHH.
Not just based on an argument that starts by assuming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him right.
Yes, but some results are not computable.
All of computation can be construed as applying finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string transformation rules to finite string inputs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the scope of computation.
You don't understand what you are talking about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, if it can't be described as a transformation it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is out of scope.
See that you proved that you do understand
what I am talking about.
So, you don't know what a transformation is.
Halting *IS* a transformation of input to output, just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a computable transformation.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {Accept, Reject} values.
The ultimate measure the actual sequence of steps that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual finite string input specifies to HHH(DD) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That DD is simulated by HHH according to the semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>> of C has been proven to be a sufficient definition of >>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH for 100 LLM conversations across four different LLMs. >>>>>>>>>>>>
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Yes, that is what they CAN do.
If you could manage to pay 100% complete attention
(this might actually be completely impossible)
You would see that no alternative better finite
string transformation rules for HHH can possibly exist.
For a particular HHH, there is only one possible transform, >>>>>>>>>> the one that it is programmed.
For every HHH/DD pair that can possibly exist
the halting problem requirements exceed the
scope of the possible finite string transformations
that HHH can apply to its input.
Nope.
As for every HHH/DD pair, there is a different DD which has a >>>>>>>> definite behavior, and thus is within the scope of a problem in >>>>>>>> Computing.
For every instance of pathological self-reference
HHH/DD pairs the halting problem requires behavior
that is outside of the scope of computation.
Nope.
Where do you get that from?
The behavior of DD is derived form string transforms of the input, >>>>>> which show that (for your HHHs that answer) will halt.
*Your ADD must me much worse than I thought*
There are no finite string transformations
that HHH can apply to its input DD that would
show that DD reaches its own final halt state.
But the definition is not "that HHH can do", and such a definition
is absurd, as HHH does only one transform.
HHH(DD) cannot possibly == UTM(DD)
proving that the halting problem requirement
is outside the scope of computation.
But the problem is the DDs give to both are the same, so mean the same.
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
Your problem is you don't know what the words you are using mean,
becasue, as you have admited, you never bothered to learn their
meaning, and are using your own lies.
It the same dirty trick that the Liar Paradox
has been playing for thousands of years.
No, it just show how little you know of what you talk.
Your stupidity just shines bright to the world.
There IS the transform of a UTM, which shows that DD halts.
All you are doing is proving your stupidity,
THus, it isn't outside the scope of computation, just outside your >>>>>> scope of understanding.
On 1/3/26 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 9:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 9:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 7:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 4:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 1:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:WHich just shows that those LLMs are wrong.
On 1/3/26 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/26 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:No, he was proven WRONG, and he admitted it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Collection is defined one or more things >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that have one or more properties in common. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These operations from set theory are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available: {rea, ree}YOU don't know what you are talking about, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal) language L that has been assigned the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic property of True. (Similar to a math >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Axiom).
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forms the ultimate foundation of the notion of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth in language L.
To verify that an expression X of language L >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is True or False only requires a syntactic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical consequence inference chain (formal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof) from one or more elements of T to X or ~X. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X)
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1997) Pete Olcott
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be formalized symbolically. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All of formalized Truth is only about relations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between finite strings of characters. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This exact same Truth can be equally expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (tokenized) as relations between integers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language"
is entirely expressed as relations between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings
of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language"
reliably computable.
No, not until you can do the first, which you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't unless you make you system "small". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All you are doing it proving you don't understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you are talking about.
That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what I am talking about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One cannot discern one's own ignorance because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this requires the missing knowledge to see the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference.
And you are just ignorance cubed.
Here is the same idea in much greater depth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and admitted it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It sure would seem that way to everyone that did >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not devote half their life to finding complete clarity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He may have admitted it but he was not actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been proven wrong.
Sure he was.
Can you actually prove he was right?
Yes
Then why haven't you?
Your current arguements have all been based on bad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
Nope. The problem is you HHH doesn't simulated its input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to the semantics of C, in part because the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input you try to give doesn't have meaning by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of C, since it deosn't define HHH.
Not just based on an argument that starts by assuming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him right.
Yes, but some results are not computable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All of computation can be construed as applying finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string transformation rules to finite string inputs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the scope of computation.
You don't understand what you are talking about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, if it can't be described as a transformation it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is out of scope.
See that you proved that you do understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what I am talking about.
So, you don't know what a transformation is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Halting *IS* a transformation of input to output, just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a computable transformation.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {Accept, Reject} values.
The ultimate measure the actual sequence of steps that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual finite string input specifies to HHH(DD) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That DD is simulated by HHH according to the semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of C has been proven to be a sufficient definition of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH for 100 LLM conversations across four different LLMs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Yes, that is what they CAN do.
For a particular HHH, there is only one possible transform, >>>>>>>>>>> the one that it is programmed.
If you could manage to pay 100% complete attention
(this might actually be completely impossible)
You would see that no alternative better finite
string transformation rules for HHH can possibly exist. >>>>>>>>>>>
For every HHH/DD pair that can possibly exist
the halting problem requirements exceed the
scope of the possible finite string transformations
that HHH can apply to its input.
Nope.
As for every HHH/DD pair, there is a different DD which has a >>>>>>>>> definite behavior, and thus is within the scope of a problem in >>>>>>>>> Computing.
For every instance of pathological self-reference
HHH/DD pairs the halting problem requires behavior
that is outside of the scope of computation.
Nope.
Where do you get that from?
The behavior of DD is derived form string transforms of the
input, which show that (for your HHHs that answer) will halt.
*Your ADD must me much worse than I thought*
There are no finite string transformations
that HHH can apply to its input DD that would
show that DD reaches its own final halt state.
But the definition is not "that HHH can do", and such a definition
is absurd, as HHH does only one transform.
HHH(DD) cannot possibly == UTM(DD)
proving that the halting problem requirement
is outside the scope of computation.
But the problem is the DDs give to both are the same, so mean the same.
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
You THINK you have, but haven't, as you never bothered to learn it.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
Nope, as the above defines what they CAN do, and implies HOW they do it,
not what they NEED to do to be correct.
Your problem is that "Correct", like "Truth" is a word you don't
understand, because it seems to be a foreign concept to you.
This is what make you a pathological liar.
Your problem is you don't know what the words you are using mean,
becasue, as you have admited, you never bothered to learn their
meaning, and are using your own lies.
It the same dirty trick that the Liar Paradox
has been playing for thousands of years.
No, it just show how little you know of what you talk.
Your stupidity just shines bright to the world.
There IS the transform of a UTM, which shows that DD halts.
All you are doing is proving your stupidity,
THus, it isn't outside the scope of computation, just outside
your scope of understanding.
On 1/4/2026 6:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 9:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 9:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 7:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 4:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 1:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:WHich just shows that those LLMs are wrong.
On 1/3/26 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/26 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Collection is defined one or more things >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that have one or more properties in common. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These operations from set theory are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available: {rea, ree}YOU don't know what you are talking about, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what I am talking about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal) language L that has been assigned the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic property of True. (Similar to a math >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Axiom).
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forms the ultimate foundation of the notion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Truth in language L.
To verify that an expression X of language L >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is True or False only requires a syntactic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical consequence inference chain (formal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof) from one or more elements of T to X or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~X.
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X)
False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X)
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1997) Pete Olcott
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be formalized symbolically. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All of formalized Truth is only about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relations between finite strings of characters. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This exact same Truth can be equally expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (tokenized) as relations between integers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language"
is entirely expressed as relations between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings
of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language"
reliably computable.
No, not until you can do the first, which you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't unless you make you system "small". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All you are doing it proving you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what you are talking about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One cannot discern one's own ignorance because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this requires the missing knowledge to see the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference.
And you are just ignorance cubed.
Here is the same idea in much greater depth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and admitted it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It sure would seem that way to everyone that did >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not devote half their life to finding complete >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clarity.
No, he was proven WRONG, and he admitted it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He may have admitted it but he was not actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been proven wrong.
Sure he was.
Can you actually prove he was right?
Yes
Then why haven't you?
Your current arguements have all been based on bad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
Nope. The problem is you HHH doesn't simulated its input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to the semantics of C, in part because the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input you try to give doesn't have meaning by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of C, since it deosn't define HHH.
Not just based on an argument that starts by assuming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him right.
Yes, but some results are not computable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All of computation can be construed as applying finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string transformation rules to finite string inputs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the scope of computation.
You don't understand what you are talking about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, if it can't be described as a transformation it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is out of scope.
See that you proved that you do understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what I am talking about.
So, you don't know what a transformation is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Halting *IS* a transformation of input to output, just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a computable transformation.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {Accept, Reject} values.
The ultimate measure the actual sequence of steps that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual finite string input specifies to HHH(DD) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That DD is simulated by HHH according to the semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of C has been proven to be a sufficient definition of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH for 100 LLM conversations across four different LLMs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Yes, that is what they CAN do.
For a particular HHH, there is only one possible transform, >>>>>>>>>>>> the one that it is programmed.
If you could manage to pay 100% complete attention
(this might actually be completely impossible)
You would see that no alternative better finite
string transformation rules for HHH can possibly exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>
For every HHH/DD pair that can possibly exist
the halting problem requirements exceed the
scope of the possible finite string transformations
that HHH can apply to its input.
Nope.
As for every HHH/DD pair, there is a different DD which has a >>>>>>>>>> definite behavior, and thus is within the scope of a problem >>>>>>>>>> in Computing.
For every instance of pathological self-reference
HHH/DD pairs the halting problem requires behavior
that is outside of the scope of computation.
Nope.
Where do you get that from?
The behavior of DD is derived form string transforms of the
input, which show that (for your HHHs that answer) will halt.
*Your ADD must me much worse than I thought*
There are no finite string transformations
that HHH can apply to its input DD that would
show that DD reaches its own final halt state.
But the definition is not "that HHH can do", and such a definition >>>>>> is absurd, as HHH does only one transform.
HHH(DD) cannot possibly == UTM(DD)
proving that the halting problem requirement
is outside the scope of computation.
But the problem is the DDs give to both are the same, so mean the same. >>>>
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
You THINK you have, but haven't, as you never bothered to learn it.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
Nope, as the above defines what they CAN do, and implies HOW they do
it, not what they NEED to do to be correct.
Any requirement outside of that scope is a
requirement outside of the scope of computation.
Your problem is that "Correct", like "Truth" is a word you don't
understand, because it seems to be a foreign concept to you.
This is what make you a pathological liar.
Your problem is you don't know what the words you are using mean,
becasue, as you have admited, you never bothered to learn their
meaning, and are using your own lies.
It the same dirty trick that the Liar Paradox
has been playing for thousands of years.
No, it just show how little you know of what you talk.
Your stupidity just shines bright to the world.
There IS the transform of a UTM, which shows that DD halts.
All you are doing is proving your stupidity,
THus, it isn't outside the scope of computation, just outside >>>>>>>> your scope of understanding.
On 1/4/26 12:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/4/2026 6:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 9:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 9:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 7:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 4:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 1:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:WHich just shows that those LLMs are wrong.
On 1/3/26 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/3/26 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/26 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Collection is defined one or more things >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that have one or more properties in common. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These operations from set theory are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available: {rea, ree}
YOU don't know what you are talking about, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what I am talking about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or formal) language L that has been assigned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the semantic property of True. (Similar to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math Axiom).
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forms the ultimate foundation of the notion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Truth in language L. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To verify that an expression X of language L >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is True or False only requires a syntactic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical consequence inference chain (formal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof) from one or more elements of T to X >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or ~X.
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X)
False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X)
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1997) Pete Olcott
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be formalized symbolically. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All of formalized Truth is only about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relations between finite strings of characters. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This exact same Truth can be equally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed (tokenized) as relations between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integers.
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language"
is entirely expressed as relations between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings
of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language"
reliably computable.
No, not until you can do the first, which you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't unless you make you system "small". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All you are doing it proving you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what you are talking about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One cannot discern one's own ignorance because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this requires the missing knowledge to see the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference.
And you are just ignorance cubed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is the same idea in much greater depth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and admitted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
It sure would seem that way to everyone that did >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not devote half their life to finding complete >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clarity.
No, he was proven WRONG, and he admitted it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He may have admitted it but he was not actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been proven wrong.
Sure he was.
Can you actually prove he was right?
Yes
Then why haven't you?
Your current arguements have all been based on bad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
Nope. The problem is you HHH doesn't simulated its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input according to the semantics of C, in part because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input you try to give doesn't have meaning by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of C, since it deosn't define HHH. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not just based on an argument that starts by assuming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him right.
Yes, but some results are not computable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All of computation can be construed as applying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite
string transformation rules to finite string inputs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the scope of computation.
You don't understand what you are talking about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, if it can't be described as a transformation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is out of scope.
See that you proved that you do understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what I am talking about.
So, you don't know what a transformation is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Halting *IS* a transformation of input to output, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just not a computable transformation.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {Accept, Reject} values.
The ultimate measure the actual sequence of steps that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual finite string input specifies to HHH(DD) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That DD is simulated by HHH according to the semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of C has been proven to be a sufficient definition of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH for 100 LLM conversations across four different LLMs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Yes, that is what they CAN do.
For a particular HHH, there is only one possible transform, >>>>>>>>>>>>> the one that it is programmed.
If you could manage to pay 100% complete attention >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (this might actually be completely impossible)
You would see that no alternative better finite
string transformation rules for HHH can possibly exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
For every HHH/DD pair that can possibly exist
the halting problem requirements exceed the
scope of the possible finite string transformations
that HHH can apply to its input.
Nope.
As for every HHH/DD pair, there is a different DD which has a >>>>>>>>>>> definite behavior, and thus is within the scope of a problem >>>>>>>>>>> in Computing.
For every instance of pathological self-reference
HHH/DD pairs the halting problem requires behavior
that is outside of the scope of computation.
Nope.
Where do you get that from?
The behavior of DD is derived form string transforms of the >>>>>>>>> input, which show that (for your HHHs that answer) will halt. >>>>>>>>>
*Your ADD must me much worse than I thought*
There are no finite string transformations
that HHH can apply to its input DD that would
show that DD reaches its own final halt state.
But the definition is not "that HHH can do", and such a
definition is absurd, as HHH does only one transform.
HHH(DD) cannot possibly == UTM(DD)
proving that the halting problem requirement
is outside the scope of computation.
But the problem is the DDs give to both are the same, so mean the
same.
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
You THINK you have, but haven't, as you never bothered to learn it.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
Nope, as the above defines what they CAN do, and implies HOW they do
it, not what they NEED to do to be correct.
Any requirement outside of that scope is a
requirement outside of the scope of computation.
But, since there *IS* a finite string transformation that can be done to
get the answer, that of the UTM, it is, by your own actual definition.
in the scope.
You eqivocate on that definition, by then trying to say that only the actions done by that decider are valid, but that gives you the absurdity that all machine, no matter what they do, are correct for any problem
you might claim they are supposed to be doing, as any other answer would
be outside the scope.
This just means that you "logic system" is built on the fundamental that lying is OK, but requirements are not.
That is the world of the pathological liar.
Your problem is that "Correct", like "Truth" is a word you don't
understand, because it seems to be a foreign concept to you.
This is what make you a pathological liar.
Your problem is you don't know what the words you are using mean,
becasue, as you have admited, you never bothered to learn their
meaning, and are using your own lies.
It the same dirty trick that the Liar Paradox
has been playing for thousands of years.
No, it just show how little you know of what you talk.
Your stupidity just shines bright to the world.
There IS the transform of a UTM, which shows that DD halts.
All you are doing is proving your stupidity,
THus, it isn't outside the scope of computation, just outside >>>>>>>>> your scope of understanding.
On 1/4/2026 1:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/4/26 12:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/4/2026 6:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 9:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 9:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 7:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 4:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 1:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:WHich just shows that those LLMs are wrong.
On 1/3/26 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/3/26 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/26 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Collection is defined one or more things >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that have one or more properties in common. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These operations from set theory are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available: {rea, ree} >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
YOU don't know what you are talking about, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That is exactly what someone would say that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn'tAn BaseFact is an expression X of (natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or formal) language L that has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assigned the semantic property of True. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Similar to a math Axiom). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forms the ultimate foundation of the notion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Truth in language L. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To verify that an expression X of language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> L is True or False only requires a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntactic logical consequence inference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chain (formal proof) from one or more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elements of T to X or ~X. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X)
False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, ~X)
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1997) Pete Olcott
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be formalized symbolically. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All of formalized Truth is only about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relations between finite strings of characters. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This exact same Truth can be equally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed (tokenized) as relations between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integers.
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language"
is entirely expressed as relations between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings
of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language"
reliably computable.
No, not until you can do the first, which you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't unless you make you system "small". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All you are doing it proving you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what you are talking about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
understand what I am talking about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One cannot discern one's own ignorance because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this requires the missing knowledge to see the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference.
And you are just ignorance cubed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is the same idea in much greater depth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admitted it.
It sure would seem that way to everyone that did >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not devote half their life to finding complete >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clarity.
No, he was proven WRONG, and he admitted it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He may have admitted it but he was not actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been proven wrong.
Sure he was.
Can you actually prove he was right?
Yes
Then why haven't you?
Your current arguements have all been based on bad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
Nope. The problem is you HHH doesn't simulated its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input according to the semantics of C, in part because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input you try to give doesn't have meaning by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of C, since it deosn't define HHH. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not just based on an argument that starts by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assuming him right.
Yes, but some results are not computable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All of computation can be construed as applying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite
string transformation rules to finite string inputs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the scope of computation.
You don't understand what you are talking about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, if it can't be described as a transformation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is out of scope.
See that you proved that you do understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what I am talking about.
So, you don't know what a transformation is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Halting *IS* a transformation of input to output, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just not a computable transformation.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {Accept, Reject} values.
The ultimate measure the actual sequence of steps that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual finite string input specifies to HHH(DD) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That DD is simulated by HHH according to the semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of C has been proven to be a sufficient definition of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH for 100 LLM conversations across four different LLMs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {Accept, Reject} values.
Yes, that is what they CAN do.
For a particular HHH, there is only one possible
If you could manage to pay 100% complete attention >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (this might actually be completely impossible)
You would see that no alternative better finite
string transformation rules for HHH can possibly exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
transform, the one that it is programmed.
For every HHH/DD pair that can possibly exist
the halting problem requirements exceed the
scope of the possible finite string transformations
that HHH can apply to its input.
Nope.
As for every HHH/DD pair, there is a different DD which has >>>>>>>>>>>> a definite behavior, and thus is within the scope of a >>>>>>>>>>>> problem in Computing.
For every instance of pathological self-reference
HHH/DD pairs the halting problem requires behavior
that is outside of the scope of computation.
Nope.
Where do you get that from?
The behavior of DD is derived form string transforms of the >>>>>>>>>> input, which show that (for your HHHs that answer) will halt. >>>>>>>>>>
*Your ADD must me much worse than I thought*
There are no finite string transformations
that HHH can apply to its input DD that would
show that DD reaches its own final halt state.
But the definition is not "that HHH can do", and such a
definition is absurd, as HHH does only one transform.
HHH(DD) cannot possibly == UTM(DD)
proving that the halting problem requirement
is outside the scope of computation.
But the problem is the DDs give to both are the same, so mean the >>>>>> same.
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
You THINK you have, but haven't, as you never bothered to learn it.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
Nope, as the above defines what they CAN do, and implies HOW they do
it, not what they NEED to do to be correct.
Any requirement outside of that scope is a
requirement outside of the scope of computation.
But, since there *IS* a finite string transformation that can be done
to get the answer, that of the UTM, it is, by your own actual
definition. in the scope.
There is no finite string transformation that HHH can
apply to its self-contradictory input DD that can
possibly meet the requirement of the halting problem.
This conclusively proves that the this requirement is
outside of the scope of computation.
I could "require" my kitchen sink to bake me a
birthday cake. Failing to do this is not the fault
of my sink.
You eqivocate on that definition, by then trying to say that only the
actions done by that decider are valid, but that gives you the
absurdity that all machine, no matter what they do, are correct for
any problem you might claim they are supposed to be doing, as any
other answer would be outside the scope.
This just means that you "logic system" is built on the fundamental
that lying is OK, but requirements are not.
That is the world of the pathological liar.
Your problem is that "Correct", like "Truth" is a word you don't
understand, because it seems to be a foreign concept to you.
This is what make you a pathological liar.
Your problem is you don't know what the words you are using mean, >>>>>> becasue, as you have admited, you never bothered to learn their
meaning, and are using your own lies.
It the same dirty trick that the Liar Paradox
has been playing for thousands of years.
No, it just show how little you know of what you talk.
Your stupidity just shines bright to the world.
There IS the transform of a UTM, which shows that DD halts.
All you are doing is proving your stupidity,
THus, it isn't outside the scope of computation, just outside >>>>>>>>>> your scope of understanding.
On 1/4/26 3:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/4/2026 1:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/4/26 12:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/4/2026 6:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 9:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 9:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 7:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 4:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/3/2026 1:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/3/26 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:WHich just shows that those LLMs are wrong.
On 1/3/2026 8:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/3/26 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/2/2026 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/26 8:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Collection is defined one or more things >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that have one or more properties in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common. These operations from set theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are available: {rea, ree} >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
YOU don't know what you are talking about, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That is exactly what someone would say that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn'tAn BaseFact is an expression X of (natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or formal) language L that has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assigned the semantic property of True. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Similar to a math Axiom). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forms the ultimate foundation of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notion of Truth in language L. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To verify that an expression X of language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> L is True or False only requires a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntactic logical consequence inference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chain (formal proof) from one or more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elements of T to X or ~X. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
True(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o, X)
False(L, X) rao rea+o rea BaseFact(L) Provable(+o,
~X)
Copyright 2018 (and many other years since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1997) Pete Olcott
Truth is the set of interlocking concepts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be formalized symbolically. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All of formalized Truth is only about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relations between finite strings of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characters.
This exact same Truth can be equally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed (tokenized) as relations between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integers.
2026 update
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language"
is entirely expressed as relations between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings
of characters.
This by itself makes
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language"
reliably computable.
No, not until you can do the first, which you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't unless you make you system "small". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All you are doing it proving you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what you are talking about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
understand what I am talking about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One cannot discern one's own ignorance because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this requires the missing knowledge to see the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference.
And you are just ignorance cubed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is the same idea in much greater depth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admitted it.
It sure would seem that way to everyone that did >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not devote half their life to finding complete >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clarity.
No, he was proven WRONG, and he admitted it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He may have admitted it but he was not actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been proven wrong.
Sure he was.
Can you actually prove he was right? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes
Then why haven't you?
Your current arguements have all been based on bad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
Nope. The problem is you HHH doesn't simulated its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input according to the semantics of C, in part >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because the input you try to give doesn't have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning by the semantics of C, since it deosn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define HHH.
Not just based on an argument that starts by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assuming him right.
All of computation can be construed as applying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite
string transformation rules to finite string >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs.
Yes, but some results are not computable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the scope of computation.
You don't understand what you are talking about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, if it can't be described as a transformation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is out of scope.
See that you proved that you do understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what I am talking about.
So, you don't know what a transformation is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Halting *IS* a transformation of input to output, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just not a computable transformation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {Accept, Reject} values.
The ultimate measure the actual sequence of steps that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual finite string input specifies to HHH(DD) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That DD is simulated by HHH according to the semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of C has been proven to be a sufficient definition of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH for 100 LLM conversations across four different LLMs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {Accept, Reject} values.
Yes, that is what they CAN do.
For a particular HHH, there is only one possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transform, the one that it is programmed.
If you could manage to pay 100% complete attention >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (this might actually be completely impossible) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You would see that no alternative better finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string transformation rules for HHH can possibly exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For every HHH/DD pair that can possibly exist
the halting problem requirements exceed the
scope of the possible finite string transformations >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that HHH can apply to its input.
Nope.
As for every HHH/DD pair, there is a different DD which has >>>>>>>>>>>>> a definite behavior, and thus is within the scope of a >>>>>>>>>>>>> problem in Computing.
For every instance of pathological self-reference
HHH/DD pairs the halting problem requires behavior
that is outside of the scope of computation.
Nope.
Where do you get that from?
The behavior of DD is derived form string transforms of the >>>>>>>>>>> input, which show that (for your HHHs that answer) will halt. >>>>>>>>>>>
*Your ADD must me much worse than I thought*
There are no finite string transformations
that HHH can apply to its input DD that would
show that DD reaches its own final halt state.
But the definition is not "that HHH can do", and such a
definition is absurd, as HHH does only one transform.
HHH(DD) cannot possibly == UTM(DD)
proving that the halting problem requirement
is outside the scope of computation.
But the problem is the DDs give to both are the same, so mean the >>>>>>> same.
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
You THINK you have, but haven't, as you never bothered to learn it.
All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
*I have been using the correct measure all along*
Nope, as the above defines what they CAN do, and implies HOW they
do it, not what they NEED to do to be correct.
Any requirement outside of that scope is a
requirement outside of the scope of computation.
But, since there *IS* a finite string transformation that can be done
to get the answer, that of the UTM, it is, by your own actual
definition. in the scope.
There is no finite string transformation that HHH can
apply to its self-contradictory input DD that can
possibly meet the requirement of the halting problem.
This conclusively proves that the this requirement is
outside of the scope of computation.
You are equivocating again.
Just shows you don't understand what you are talking about.
By that definition, everything is right, as the only answer it could
give is the one it gives.
I could "require" my kitchen sink to bake me a
birthday cake. Failing to do this is not the fault
of my sink.
Since your sink doesn't claim to be able to do that, that would be invalid.
On 1/4/26 7:13 PM, olcott wrote:
Computation inherently cannot accomplish
anything that is not equivalent to finite
string operations on the actual finite
string that it actually gets.
UTM(DD) is not equivalent to HHH(DD)
because DD does not call UTM(DD).
-
Which just shows you don't understand the concept of REQUIREMENT, and
think wrong answer are ok.
You confuse the "scope" of what is POSSIBLE, with the scope of what it
an allowed requirement.
You seem to think it is improper to be able to ask about something that can't be done, which just means you can't ask a question you don't know
the answer to, as you can't tell if it IS allowed, until you work out
the answer.
This just shows how screwed up your logic is, and come because of your fundamental confusion about the meaning of core terms that you chose not
to learn.
So, all you have shown is that you live in a fantasy world that doesn't match reality, and thus you search for truth is just logically
impossible, as truth doesn't actually exist in your world.
The domain of valid questions are *ANY* mapping of an input domain that
can be expressed as finite strings, to outputs that can also be
expressed as finite strings.
Thus all such question are a form of "transform" from the input to the output, according to the rules that define that mapping.
That some of these maps can not be computed by an algorithm is a major
point of computation theory, which has a goal of determine what sort of questions *CAN* be computed.
Your criteria is worthless, as you can't ask a question you don't have
the answer to already.
On 1/4/2026 7:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/4/26 7:13 PM, olcott wrote:
Computation inherently cannot accomplish
anything that is not equivalent to finite
string operations on the actual finite
string that it actually gets.
UTM(DD) is not equivalent to HHH(DD)
because DD does not call UTM(DD).
-
Which just shows you don't understand the concept of REQUIREMENT, and
think wrong answer are ok.
I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox back in 2004
function LoopIfYouSayItHalts (bool YouSayItHalts):
-a-a if YouSayItHalts () then
-a-a-a-a-a-a while true do {}
-a-a-a else
-a-a-a-a-a-a return false;
Does this program Halt?
(Your (YES or NO) answer is to be considered
-atranslated to Boolean as the function's input
-aparameter)
Please ONLY PROVIDE CORRECT ANSWERS!
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/Hs78nMN6QZE/m/ID2rxwo__yQJ
I had the answer 21 years ago
Any yes/no question where both yes and no are the
wrong answer is an incorrect question.
You confuse the "scope" of what is POSSIBLE, with the scope of what it
an allowed requirement.
You seem to think it is improper to be able to ask about something
that can't be done, which just means you can't ask a question you
don't know the answer to, as you can't tell if it IS allowed, until
you work out the answer.
This just shows how screwed up your logic is, and come because of your
fundamental confusion about the meaning of core terms that you chose
not to learn.
So, all you have shown is that you live in a fantasy world that
doesn't match reality, and thus you search for truth is just logically
impossible, as truth doesn't actually exist in your world.
The domain of valid questions are *ANY* mapping of an input domain
that can be expressed as finite strings, to outputs that can also be
expressed as finite strings.
Thus all such question are a form of "transform" from the input to the
output, according to the rules that define that mapping.
That some of these maps can not be computed by an algorithm is a major
point of computation theory, which has a goal of determine what sort
of questions *CAN* be computed.
Your criteria is worthless, as you can't ask a question you don't have
the answer to already.
On 1/5/26 12:30 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/4/2026 7:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/4/26 7:13 PM, olcott wrote:
Computation inherently cannot accomplish
anything that is not equivalent to finite
string operations on the actual finite
string that it actually gets.
UTM(DD) is not equivalent to HHH(DD)
because DD does not call UTM(DD).
-
Which just shows you don't understand the concept of REQUIREMENT, and
think wrong answer are ok.
I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox back in 2004
function LoopIfYouSayItHalts (bool YouSayItHalts):
-a-a-a if YouSayItHalts () then
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a while true do {}
-a-a-a-a else
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a return false;
Does this program Halt?
(Your (YES or NO) answer is to be considered
-a-atranslated to Boolean as the function's input
-a-aparameter)
Please ONLY PROVIDE CORRECT ANSWERS!
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/Hs78nMN6QZE/m/ID2rxwo__yQJ
I had the answer 21 years ago
Any yes/no question where both yes and no are the
wrong answer is an incorrect question.
Which, as pointed out before, just shows that you don't understand the actual problem and think making up your own can replace it,
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 15:52:11 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (2,681K bytes) |
| Messages: | 184,205 |
| Posted today: | 1 |