Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- RECURSIVE CHAIN --- Saving Democracy

On 2/24/25 11:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/24/2025 10:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/24/25 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/24/2025 6:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/24/25 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/24/2025 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-23 17:35:46 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 2/23/2025 4:46 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-22 16:43:24 +0000, olcott said:
>

My proof is very important because it provides the key
basis for a chat bot that can spot and perfectly refute
lies in real time. This could save the planet and save
Democracy.

>
Unlikely to work if you let the chat bot to assume or infer
that false <-> true.

>
When its knowledge is correctly encoded it would never make
that stupid mistake.

>
If you build the bot from a proof that implies that true <-> false

>
THEN YOU ARE ENCODING IT INCORRECTLY.
TRUE ↔ FALSE is stupidly wrong.
Why are you suggesting something that is stupidly wrong?

>
Then why do YOU make that claim by saying that when True(LP) returns FALSE, which means that LP is defined as not FALSE, or TRTUE,

>
>
To say that Not(true) = false stupidly ignores that
some expressions are not truth-bearers.
>
>

>
But the answer of a truth predicate always is, BY DEFINITION.
>

 When gibberish is input to a truth predicate it
always must return not true. This gibberish is
also not false.

But that "gibberish" is the output of the truth predicate, and semantically valid in the system. You seem to ignore that he shows that the expresion CAN BE FORMED from the rules of the system, and thus, must be answered.
If the "gibberish" must not be true, then True(LP) will be false, and thus LP will be true, and thus you systme claims that True(true) is false, and thus is broken.
Your brain is just missing on a few cylinders and knocking badly.
And, you are so stupid you are ignoring the flames coming out from under your hood.

 

I guess you just don't understand what you are talking about.