Re: HHH(DD) --- COMPUTE ACTUAL MAPPING FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT --- Using Finite String Transformations

On 4/20/25 1:18 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/19/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-04-17 19:57:30 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 4/17/2025 2:19 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/17/2025 6:49 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/16/2025 1:09 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 13:29:18 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:

>
[ .... ]
>

All of logic, reasoning and computation boils down to finite string
transformations on inputs deriving outputs.

>

That's a big assertion, one you have not proved.  It is one you can't
prove, even were it true, since you don't understand the concept of
proof.

>

When a categorically exhaustive search is made it is self-evident that
all computation, logic, and human reasoning has as its barest possible
essence transforming input finite strings into outputs via finite
string transformations.

>
It is not at all self-evident.

>
It is self-evident that there are no exceptions to the rule
the all truth that is entirely anchored in fully formalized
semantics an be expressed as finite string transformations
from input finite strings.

>
It seems that there is an error above as I can't parse it. But it is
not clear how that should be corrected.
>
>

 All mental, computational or logical reasoning
boils down to finite string transformation rules
applied to finite strings deriving finite string
outputs.

Nope, mental processing, to the best of our knowledge, is an ANALOG process based on continously variable signals expressed at the Neuron.
Yes, COMPUTATIONAL reasoning boils down to finite string processing, but sometimes on a very large space so the finite string model isn't really appropriate any more, like when we do computations on floating point nunbers, where the finiteness is only a concession to the reality of being able to build the computational system.
This also includes your precious AI models, which are NOT based on Finite-String theory, but very large dimension vector operations.
Sorry, you just don't understand the complexity of the systems you are talking about, because you mind just can't handle it.

 That no counter-example to this rule exists is its proof.
 

Which just proves that you "logic" isn't valid, as proof is not based on lack of counter-evidence. By that logic you admit you system is just contradictory, as you are asserting that all the great unsolved problems must be right now both True, since no counter for them is known, but also False, since we can not prove them true, so there is no counter-example to the statement being false.
Sorry, you are just proving you don't understand how any of this works.