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

On 6/24/2025 12:39 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

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*

 OK, let us be charitable, and suggest that that exam was a very long
time ago, and that your general intelligence has declined substantially
in the interval.
 

That I am unwilling to accept that textbooks on computer
science are inherently infallible is the broader minded
perspective of philosophy of computation.

 That's an inaccurate summary.  You're clearly unable to understand these
textbooks.  If you were able, you'd see that the things they say are
necessarily correct, according to clear reasoning from obvious axioms.
Whether you'd accept these books if you could understand them is more
the question.
 

It is an easily verified fact that no *input* to any
partial halt decider (PHD) can possibly do the opposite
of what its corresponding PHD decides. In all of the
years of all of these proofs no such *input* was ever
presented.

This requires much more intelligence than simply memorizing a set of
rules and then mindlessly following these rules.

 It does.  Somebody simply memorizing these rules would be unable to pass
his exams and graduate.  To graduate in computer science, and certainly
in mathematics, requires an ability fluently to manipulate abstractions,
something which cannot be done without fundamental understanding.
 You clearly lack this ability and that understanding.
 I don't believe there's any substance behind your "in the top 3%" claim.
It's at complete odds with what we see you writing in this newsgroup.
 

-- 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