Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider --- Trump and Hitler

On 9/12/24 9:12 AM, olcott wrote:

On 9/12/2024 7:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 9/12/24 8:29 AM, olcott wrote:

On 9/12/2024 6:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 9/11/24 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 9/11/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 9/11/24 10:15 PM, olcott wrote:

On 9/11/2024 6:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 9/11/24 7:17 PM, olcott wrote:

On 9/11/2024 11:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 11.sep.2024 om 13:41 schreef olcott:

On 9/11/2024 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-11 00:21:36 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 9/10/2024 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-09 18:19:26 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 9/8/2024 9:53 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-07 13:57:00 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 9/7/2024 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-07 05:12:19 +0000, joes said:
>

Am Fri, 06 Sep 2024 06:42:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 9/6/2024 6:19 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-05 13:24:20 +0000, olcott said:

On 9/5/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-03 13:00:50 +0000, olcott said:

On 9/3/2024 5:25 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-02 16:38:03 +0000, olcott said:
>

A halt decider is a Turing machine that computes the mapping from
its finite string input to the behavior that this finite string
specifies.

>
A halt decider needn't compute the full behaviour, only whether
that behaviour is finite or infinite.
>

New slave_stack at:1038c4 Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation

>

Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>
Hence  HHH(DDD)==0 is correct

>
Nice to see that you don't disagree with what said.
Unvortunately I can't agree with what you say.
HHH terminates,
os DDD obviously terminates, too. No valid

>
DDD emulated by HHH never reaches it final halt state.

>
If that iis true it means that HHH called by DDD does not return and
therefore is not a ceicder.

The directly executed HHH is a decider.

What does simulating it change about that?

>
If the simulation is incorrect it may change anything.
>

PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR

>
However, a correct simultation faithfully imitates the original
behaviour.
>

>
_DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
A correct emulation obeys the x86 machine code even
if this machine code catches the machine on fire.
>
It is impossible for an emulation of DDD by HHH to
reach machine address 00002183 AND YOU KNOW IT!!!

>
A correct emulation of DDD does reach the machine address 0000217f and
a little later 00002183.

>
*That is counter-factual and you cannot possibly show otherwise*

>
A halt decider is required to predict about the actual execution,
not a couterfactual assumption.
>

>
False assumption.
A halt decider must compute the mapping that its input
finite string specifies.

>
And the input, a finite string that describes a program based on the aborting HHH, describes a halting program, as proven by the direct execution, by the unmodified world class simulator and even by HHH1. The semantics of the x86 language allows only one behaviour for the finite string. Any program claiming another behaviour violates the semantics of the x86 language,
>

>
It is ridiculously stupid to assume that the fact
that DDD calls its own emulator does not change
its behavior relative to not calling its own emulator.

>
It ridiculous to assume that the semantics of the x86 language allows another behaviour for the finite string.
>
>
Why do you have a religious conviction to this stupid
mistake?

>
Once we understand we can make a machine that detects
lies in real time on the basis of knowing truth we will
know that we didn't have to die from climate change or
allow the rise of the fourth Reich.
>
>

>
Are you sure we can do that?
>
The problem seems to be that you are ASSUMING it.
>

>
The key is (as I have been saying for a long time)
To anchor the accurate model of the actual world in axioms.

>
And how do you know your axiom about the actual world are correct? Things about what we have defined are one thing. (like defining a foot to be 12 inches). But anything that is based on observation inherently has a degree of error, and thus we can't actually KNOW if our conclusions are true.
>

>
*AS FREAKING DETAILED BELOW*
Getting from Generative AI to Trustworthy AI:
What LLMs might learn from Cyc
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2308/2308.04445.pdf

>
Which absolutely can't tell if something about an empirical statement is actually correct, as it is a pure analytic system.
>

>
Such a system can immediately call out the hired liars
of climate change by doing as I have have done directly
studying the raw data.

>
So, PRESENT the actual data that LOGICLY PROVES what you claim. Remember, your claim is a logical proof from axioms, and axioms need to be the AGREED upon must be trues of the system.
>
So, not this is the "best" answer, but this is the only possible answer no matter how strange of a case we might be in.
>
>

Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts

>
Nope, you begin asserting your assumption and never prove it.
>
Note, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
>
You are just proving that youy are too stupid to make an actual correct arguement.
>

>
https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
>
The drastic increase is CO2 since 1959 is 126-fold faster than
any time in the last 800,000 years according to the raw data.
The raw data is taken to be an axiom.

>
Which can't prove the CAUSE.
>

 We have no proof that five minutes ago ever existed.
We have sufficient weight of evidence that humans
have cause severe climate change.

So, you ADMIT that you have lied about the ability to PROVE your statement as an actual ANALYTIC PROOF.
You are just proving you don't understand what you are talking about.
There is a categorical difference between a LOGICAL PROOF of a statement, and the ability to determine that it is sufficiently likely to be true to be "accepted".

 

>

>
It is well established science that climate is sensitive to
increases in CO2. This is taken to be an axiom.

>
But doesn't prove the CAUSE.
>

>
Counter-arguments against this axiom are incoherent.
"I just don't believe it" is a claim without a basis,
thus disregarded.

>
And I can't think of another possiblity is not proof.
>

>

>
It can also fully understand every argument ever made that
climate change is real and every counter-argument making
the counter arguments look ridiculously foolish at every
language level from kindergarten to PhD expert in the field.

>
>
Nope, At best it will do what you are doing and just be making up shit.
>
>

>
*It only needs the single rule of coherence to do this*
(and direct access to everything ever written by anyone).

>
Nope, not enough to PROVE the actual link
>

>
It will prove that rebuttals are incoherent. It will prove
that the claim of climate change is coherent. It will prove
that the claim of climate change is true within the model
of the actual world.

>
No, it proves YOU are incoherent, as you base your arguement on absolute assertings that can not be absolutely proven.
>

 Within the model of the actual world it is complete proof.

There is, and can not be (at least by mortal humans) a correct model of the actual world.
You just admitted that,

 

>

>
Refuting that election fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential election is only a high school level debate.

>
But not LOGICALLY PROVAVLE because we can't prove the absence of data we don't know about. We can show that odds are vanishly small, but not that they are zero, because we can't know FOR CERTAIN that
>

>
We prove that no one has ever provided any evidence that Trump
is not lying about election fraud. We prove that Trump is exactly
copying Hitler by repeating the same claim about election fraud
over and over.

>
Which doesn't prove that no such evidence could exist.
>

 It proves that Trump is lying.

No, it proves that it is almost certain that he is lying, but proving it to the level of LOGICAL PROOF is generally impossible unless you can find actual contradictions in statements.

 

>
"The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many- sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out."
A direct quote from Mein Kampf Adolf Hitler (1926)
>
We have proven that Trump is exactly copying Hitler and it
is unreasonably implausible that Trump is not lying about
election fraud.

>
And you seem to think that implausible means impossible which just proves you don't understand the definition of Truth and Logic,
>

 It it not impossible that 10,000 microscopic
space aliens living in your left thumb are
controlling the words that you are saying.
It is unreasonably implausible.

So, you AGREE that you have lied that you can LOGICALLY PROVE your assertion.
The fundamental fact is you don't understand the difference between what a LOGICAL PROOF is and what is what is sufficently supported to be considered to be "accepted as true".

 

>

>
No one else in the history of the US presidency (Besides Trump)
has ever exactly copied Hitler by repeating the same lie over
and over until 45% of voters accepted it as true entirely on the
basis of this repetition. *It has always been completely baseless*

>
Is that why you have copied your idos mythology? Just keep repeating your LIES and ignore the truth?
>
That *IS* what you are doing.
>
You IGNORE the actual definition and make up your own, and just assume that what you want it true. That is the heart of a pahological liar.
>

>
In other words you would baselessly denigrate me at the expense
of the survival of the species and at the expense of the rise
of the fourth Reich.

>
No, I denigrate you to point out that we need to use REAL logic to determine the best plan of actions, and not accept as fact things that are claimed without solid evidence.
>

 You merely prove that you are clueless about inductive inference.
All science and knowledge of the world is less than 100% perfectly
certain yet it is the best that we have. If you have brain cancer
are you going cure it with orange juice or medical methods?

Right, and thus NOT LOGICALLY PROVEN like you claim
You are just admitting that you statement are based on logic that considers LIES to be a valid logical form.
Sorry, you are proving that you are not a reliable source of information.

 

Only by understanding the difference between what we know, what we can know, and what is actually the truth, can we improve our knowledge and keep it as accurate as possible.
>
Once you confuse those things, you allow unchecked error into you knowledge and lose it.
>
That is what has happened to you.
>

>

>

>

Your problem, again, is that you just don't understand what you are reading, or talking about, because you have literally decided not to study the core of logic to know how it works, and thus are speaking out of pure ignorance.
>

>
*Some of the most brilliant minds in AI for 40 years*
Doug Lenat Gary Marcus July 31, 2023
>
>

>
>

>
>

>

>
>

>