On 16/05/2026 13:16, olcott wrote:
On 5/16/2026 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 15/05/2026 17:27, olcott wrote:
On 5/15/2026 12:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 14/05/2026 17:40, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2026 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/05/2026 14:32, olcott wrote:
On 5/13/2026 4:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/05/2026 16:32, olcott wrote:
On 5/12/2026 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 11/05/2026 14:44, olcott wrote:
On 5/11/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 10/05/2026 22:06, olcott wrote:
On 5/10/2026 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote:We don't have the knowledge that all undecidability is >>>>>>>>>>>>> merely semantic
On 09/05/2026 15:13, olcott wrote:
On 5/9/2026 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 08/05/2026 19:58, olcott wrote:
On 5/8/2026 11:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/8/26 12:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 07/05/2026 12:00, dart200 wrote:
On 5/7/26 12:18 AM, Mikko wrote:A machine is not a "diagonal".
On 06/05/2026 22:40, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/6/26 12:55 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/05/2026 12:28, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/5/26 1:25 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/05/2026 10:53, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/3/26 11:15 PM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/05/2026 12:09, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/3/26 12:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/05/2026 23:39, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/26 10:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/26 1:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2026 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/04/2026 15:58, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
it. Any use of the word before the definition is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense,.no you can't.I can't explain the art of reading Common >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language.i can't read if u can't explain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There is a way to find out if you can read. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Turing proved that there are universal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing machines. An universalTuring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine halts with some inputs and doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt with any other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input. Every Turing machine that can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given the same input as an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universal Turing machine either fails to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accept some input with which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that universal Turing machine halts or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fails to reject some input with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which that universal Turing macnie does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not halt.richard richard richard, that is in-correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Unknown truths are not elements of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the body of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge is a semantic tautology. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that things that are unknown are known? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, but that measn that for some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentences X True(X) is unknown and there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no method to find out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don't know about philosophers but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematicians and logicians don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find it interesting if all you can say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that all knowledge is knowable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and everything else is not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ross Finlayson, seemed to endlessly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hedge on whether >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not the truth value of the Goldbach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conjecture was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known. He seemed to think that there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are alternative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytical frameworks that make the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question of whether >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not its truth value is known an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ambiguous question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I needed to refer to unknown truth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values specifically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because all "undecidability" when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construed correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falls into one of two categories. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Semantic incoherence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Unknown truth values. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nope.
Undecidability can not come from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Semantic Incoherence, as the definition >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Undecidability ia based on there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being a coherent answer, just not one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be determined by a computation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the undecidable problem turing described >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (as well as the basic halting problem) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involves a situations that have _no_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coherent answer, not just one that can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known by not computed ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
dunno what ur saying here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is impossible to have a Turing machine that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computes a number thatyes, but then he argues it's impossible to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute the diagonal because of the paradox >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ensues when naively running the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classifier on the diagonal itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inturing hypothesized a diagonal computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that tries to put the Nth digit from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nth circle- free machine as the Nth digit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on this diagonal across all circle- free >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine...
That is possible because there nither the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines nor digit positions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are more numerous than natural numbers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
no Turing machine can compute. But you can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute it if you can use
all (infinitely many) Turing machines. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hard to test as I han't infinite many Turing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines. But it is
u don't need to test it, you can't define a total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dovetailing machine to compute turing's diagonal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should not say anything about the diagonal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before you have defined
the H machine defined on p247 from his paper /on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable numbers/
the machine supposes to compute the "turing's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diagonal" across circle- free sequences, otherwise >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> labeled as +#' in the paper, defined at the bottom of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> p246
Anything that any machine can possibly compute can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be computed by applying a finite set of finite string >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformation rules to a finite set of finite strings. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Everything else is simply out-of-scope for computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like making a silk purse from a sow's ear.
That "everything else" includes many thigns that would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be useful to
know. In particular, whether some useful function can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be computed is
in that "everything else".
Like the truth value of: "This sentence is not true" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that has no truth value.
I don't think knowing the truth value of that would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful. At least
not for any important purpose.
Knowing that all undecidability is merely semantic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherence enables:
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
incoherence, and can't know because we already know that >>>>>>>>>>>>> there is
undecidability that is not semantic incoherence. FOr >>>>>>>>>>>>> example the
axiom system
-a-a reCx (1riax = x)
1.5 != 5 re| you are wrong and I am couinting the rest as >>>>>>>>>>>> gibberish
Middle dot is a commonly used mathematical operator. In this >>>>>>>>>>> context
where the purpose of the operation is not specified some >>>>>>>>>>> other symbols
are often used instead, like rey or reO, or operands are just put >>>>>>>>>>> side by
side with no operator between.
If commonly used mathematics is gibberish to you then we many >>>>>>>>>>> safely
conclude that you have nothing useful to offer to the groups you >>>>>>>>>>> posted to.
-a-a reCx (xria1 = x)
-a-a reCxreCyreCz (xria(yriaz) = (xriay)riaz)
-a-a reCxreay (xriay = 1)
-a-a reCxreay (yriax = 1)
is useful for many purposes. But there are sentences like >>>>>>>>>>>>>
-a-a reCxreay (xriay = yriax)
that are undecidable in that system. But there is notiong >>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically
incoherent in that example or similar ones.
The truth about climate change and election fraud could >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be computed.
Not without real world information.
Yes, so what?
So the biggest problem is not how to compute but how to get >>>>>>>>>>> and verify
the relevant real world infomration.
A set of "atomic facts" does exist. We only nee to write> them >>>>>>>>>> all down.
THat is a lot of work that can never be completed.
It can be completed with sufficient automation.
No, it can't. It is not completed before it contains all material >>>>>>> that
will be published.
IDK, an LLM might do this in five minutes.The place to start would be published textbooks.
How long does it take to read all texbooks published in one year? >>>>>>>>
No, because in that time it cannot access all of the material. And >>>>>>> it takes time to extract atomic facts and to store them into a big >>>>>>> database.
LLM would have to be taught how to extract facts.
If it takes then ten times longer to extract all
the facts of a body of text they will still be done
with every textbook ever written after one year.
Then peer reviewed papers.
Now long does it take to read all reviewed papers published in >>>>>>>>> one year?
Then published newspaper articles.
How long does it take to read all newspaper articles publised >>>>>>>>> in one
year?
An LLM might read everything ever published in one year.
During that year more is publised.
I may be one or two days out-of-sync far far better
than any human.
And what to do with the "atomic facts" that conflict each other? >>>>>>>>>>>> All knowledge that can be expressed in language would
include the exact (x,y,z) coordinates of every atom of your >>>>>>>>>>>> body relative to the exact center of the Earth every
millisecond.
Because this degree of detail is not physically implementable >>>>>>>>>>>> to implement my system we exclude most specific details. It >>>>>>>>>>>> is a system of general knowledge of about 200 petabytes. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Of course you may postulate that
the climate is immutable or that there was massimbe >>>>>>>>>>>>> undetected fraud
in the last or some earlier election but that is not what >>>>>>>>>>>>> the word
"knowledge" means.
The key elements of election fraud are two things:
(a) There was no actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly changed the results.
The key element of elction fraud is to find a vulnerability >>>>>>>>>>> in the
election procedure.
There has only been 1620 total documented cases in the USA >>>>>>>>>> in the last 30 years. Every investigation into fraud by
audits found a few more votes against Trump than prior to
the audit. Each of the 60 election fraud cases Trump lost. >>>>>>>>>> He lost because his lawyers could not tell the wild stories >>>>>>>>>> that he was telling the public without getting themselves
convicted of perjury.
These these fact were unconvincing seems to prove that
his supporters are in a cult.
But not that there were no fraud performed skillfully enough to >>>>>>>>> avoid
detection. What was found was only small unintentional errors that >>>>>>>>> nobody tried to hide.
Likewise there is no perfect logical proof that
can possibly exist that five minutes ago ever existed.
It may also be the case that all of reality is entirely
fictional.
That is right. But that is not relevant to our understanding of the >>>>>>> assumed processes that given the world the form it has now or that >>>>>>> we can expect it to have in the near future. Perhaps the world is >>>>>>> just God's thought but if it is it seems to be a coherent thought. >>>>>>>
Correct, to we just encode all of this in language.
Within the possibly false assumption that reality is
not fictional and five minutes ago did exist then
Trump is merely copying Hitler's big lie about election
fraud is as certain as certain can possibly be.
When did Hitler claim anything about an election fraud?
Chapter 6 of Mein Kampf
"The receptive powers of the masses are very
restricted, and their understanding is feeble.
On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such
being the case, all effective propaganda must
be confined to a few bare essentials and those
must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped
formulas. These slogans should be persistently
repeated until the very last individual has come
to grasp the idea that has been put forward."
Provides the details of Hitler's propaganda system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie#2020_stolen_election_claims
Looks like a confessison that you lied.
I did not say it as clearly as I could have said it.
Trump did exactly copy Hitler's "big lie" propaganda
system from Hitler's Chapter Six "War Propaganda"
system of Hitler's Mein Kampf in Trump's lies about
election fraud.
You still don't say it as clearly as you should. Trump obviously applies >>> same propaganda methods as Hitler did. Why not? They worked for Hitler
and they work for Trump, too. This explains Trups claims about an
election fraud but is irrelevant to the question whether there was an
election fraud and how much frauds affected the results.
There is no evidence of election fraud
So you say but can't prove.
and there is
much evidence that Trump is lying about election fraud
using Hilter's own system of lies therefore rational
minds would conclude that the evidence supports Trump
is lying about election fraud though fascist methods.
Irrelevant to the question whether there was an undetected election
fraud. Trump obviously can't know about the fraud if it is undetected.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 01:07:16 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (20,373K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,187 |