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

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, and thus your predicate True(LP) == True(TRUE) says that TRUE <-> FALSE

 

then it is hard to avoid that "mistake". But you may be right that
in that case the knowledge of the bot will not be correcly encoded.
>