Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique

On 6/24/2025 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/24/2025 3:39 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-23 16:37:53 +0000, olcott said:

 

I always interpret expressions of language according
to the literal base meaning of their words.

 

I interprete the above to mean that the author of those words is stupid.

 

Counter factual, my IQ is in the top 3%

 Pull the other one!
 Given your demonstrated lack of understanding of abstraction, of what a
proof is, of so many other things, it is clear to all the regulars in
this group that your IQ is not "in the top 3%", or anywhere near it.
 It would seem to me you are, yet again, in the words of Sir Robert
Armstrong, being economical with the truth.
 

*I really did get that IQ on the Mensa entrance exam*
That I am unwilling to accept that textbooks on computer
science are inherently infallible is the broader minded
perspective of philosophy of computation. This requires
much more intelligence than simply memorizing a set of
rules and then mindlessly following these rules.

-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

 

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer