XPost: comp.theory
On 11/16/24 10:55 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/16/2024 9:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/16/24 9:57 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/16/2024 3:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-11-15 23:43:02 +0000, olcott said:
On 11/15/2024 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-11-14 23:53:38 +0000, olcott said:
On 11/14/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-11-13 23:11:30 +0000, olcott said:
On 11/13/2024 4:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-11-12 13:58:03 +0000, olcott said:
On 11/12/2024 1:12 AM, joes wrote:
Am Mon, 11 Nov 2024 10:35:57 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 11/11/2024 10:25 AM, joes wrote:
Am Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:58:02 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2024 4:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-11-09 14:36:07 +0000, olcott said:
On 11/9/2024 7:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
The actual computation itself does involve HHH emulating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself
emulating DDD. To simply pretend that this does not occur >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems
dishonest.
Which is what you are doing: you pretend that DDD calls >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some other HHH
that doesn’t abort.
DDD emulated by HHH does not reach its "return" instruction >>>>>>>>>>>>> final halt
state whether HHH aborts its emulation or not.
When DDD calls a simulator that aborts, that simulator >>>>>>>>>>>> returns to DDD,
which then halts.
It is not the same DDD as the DDD under test.
If the DDD under the test is not the same as DDD then the test >>>>>>>>>> is performed incorrectly and the test result is not valid. >>>>>>>>>>
The DDD under test IS THE INPUT DDD
IT IS STUPIDLY WRONG-HEADED TO THINK OTHERWISE.
I agree that there is only one DDD but above you said otherwise. >>>>>>>>
That is a ridiculously stupid thing to say because we
already know that DDD emulated by HHH emulates itself
emulating DDD and DDD emulated by HHH1 *DOES NOT DO THAT*
You are free to laugh if you think the truth is stupid.
This is my life's only legacy that I really want to complete
before I die.
What does that "This" mean?
https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
Which just shows you are a hypocrite, as you don't go to the axioms,
or accepted truths of the system.
The axioms of every x86 emulator are the definition
of the semantic of the x86 language only an ignoramus
or a liar would say or imply otherwise.
The problem is there is no "axiom" that says that HHH is an emulator.
And the x96 Language says that the instruction "call HHH" needs to be
followed by the instructions OF HHH, which are not given, so your
question is just gobbledygook like "What is the sum of one plus?"
SOrry, you are the liar..
If you want to add a supposition that HHH is actually an emulator, then
you lock yourself into that definition, and HHH, even being a "decider"
isn't ALLOWED to abort, and thus fails to meet its requirement.
Either it is a decider or it is an emulator. Trying to assert both is
just an admission of your logic being built on inherent contradictions.
Claiming partial emulation is allowed as the definition of the semantics
of the input is just an admission that you are just lying about what you
are talking about, as that contradicts the actual definitions of the x86 language.
and my work on generic undecidability showing that:
(⊢ is to be construed as applying truth preserving
operations to the LHS deriving the RHS)
Incomplete(L) ≡ ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x))
*never has been correct it has always actually been this*
¬TruthBearer(L,x) ≡ ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x))
True(L,x) ≡ Haskell_Curry_Elementary_Theorems(L) □ x
x is a necessary consequence of the expressions of the
language of L that have been stipulated to be true.
False(L,x) ≡ Haskell_Curry_Elementary_Theorems(L) □ ~x
~x is a necessary consequence of the expressions of the
language of L that have been stipulated to be true.
The above provides the basis for LLM AI systems to
distinguish facts from fictions.
Nope, as LLM don't do "Logic", but just pattern matching.
Hence we augment them so that they do more than this.
Once that have an actual basis to distinguish fact from
fiction LLM hallucinations will cease. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2308/2308.04445.pdf
Then they aren't LLM any more.
Sorry, you are just having trouble with the definitions of words.
That the provability operator has been replaced
with the necessity operator seems to require semantic
relevance. This prevents logic from diverging from
correct reasoning in many different ways such as
the principle of explosion.
Which just shows that you don't undetstand that problem.
Provability is about KNOWLEDGE, we can KNOW something because we have
proved it.
We can not know if something meets "necessity", which allows for an
infinite number of steps, unless we can find a finite sequence that we
can see.
The purpose the changing to the "necessity" operator is
to mandate semantic relevance.
Maybe you need to really define what you mean by "necessity". If you
mean what is normally called truth by the (possibly infinite) chain of
truth preserving operations, then you lose the concept of knowledge, as
that rests on the FINITE nature of proofs.
If you mean that the conclusion falls as a necessity of the premises,
then that is what logic entails. IF it is a FACT that A or B is true,
and it is a FACT that A is not true, it is a logically necessity that B
be True.
Part of your problem is you don't undetstand what "semantics" means in
logic. If you want to try to tie the "semantics" in the formal system to
some meaning for outside the system, then you are just not working in a
formal system.
Note, there is a type of logic called "relevance logic" that seems to do
some of what you are trying to do, but that leads to restrictions on the
logic, like the requirement for atomic formulae.
Since you don't seem to be able to define exactly what you mean, it is
hard for your arguements to make any sense.
There are many classical problem which we know that they must be True
or False, as the form of the problem doesn't allow something in
between, either it is true for ALL Numbers, or there is a number that
it breaks for, or there is a highest number that satisfies something
or there isn't, but whose truth hasn't been provable yet, and they
might NEVER be actually provable because the ONLY way to establish
that truth is to check EVERY POSSIBLE NUMBER out of the infinite set,
and that operation is impossible to complete.
All you are doing is showing that your don't understand the
fundamental basics of how logic works, and just blindly assume to your
determent that you can just "tweek" some definitions and everything
will be the same except you eliminate the "problems" you have.
The changes you want to make to remove "incompleteness" either remove
the concept of Knowledge from your system (as you remove the method to
determine what is known) or reduce the power of the system by
preventing operations that have been used to establish some of the
basic tools used in modern logic.
But, you just don't understand that, because you don't understand how
things work, and thus you whole world becomes inconsistent, which then
explodes by the principle of explosion.
I supersede and overrule how things work the same sort of
way that ZFC overruled naive set theory.
Then you just admit that you are a liar, because ZFC doesn't "OVERRULE"
naive set theory, but created a totally new set theory that was then
accepted.
YOU haven't done the work to actually "create" a new logic system, just
vaguely defined a few terms, and as thus there is nothing for anyone to
even try to "accept"
Then, you talk about theories, that you haven't even been able to show
that your logic ideas can form a logic system that meets the
requirements for the theorems.
A & ~A derives FALSE.
To say that A & ~A derives "the Moon is made from green cheese".
is a psychotic degree of nuts.
No, it just shows that you don't understand what logic says, and thus
your insistance shows that YOU are the one that is NUTS.
When we require semantic relevance of the necessity operator
then A & ~A □ derives nothing at all, not even the empty set.
Which seems to be you are talking about Relevance logic, but don't
understand what you are actually talking about, as the things you want
to refute aren't based in Relevance logic.
Yes, there are logic system that remove some of the logic needed to
show the principle of explosion, but the removal of that logic also
greatly reduces what those system can show.
Sorry, all you are doing is proving your utter stupidity and ignorance
of what you talk about, and that your logic is based on approving that
lying is acceptable at times, and thus Truth isn't true anymore.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)