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

[ Followup-To: set. ]

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/24/2025 1:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

That's both a lie and a strawman.  The fact is, you're unable to
understand computer science textbooks.  If you could, you wouldn't simply
try and dodge the point.

.... In all of the years of all of these proofs no such *input* was
ever presented.

Of course not.  Such input can't exist.  What's happening here is that
you utterly fail to understand proof by contradiction, just as you fail
to understand so many abstractions.

*You are not paying close enough attention*
There cannot possibly be any *input* to any partial halt
decider that does the opposite of whatever this PHD decides
even when this (PHD) gets the wrong answer. All of the proofs
for all of these years have been bogus on this basis.

All these proofs were valid and remain valid.  You're insufficiently
intelligent to understand them.  But you're right about me not paying
close attention.  Your continual repetitions of falsehoods got too dull
too long ago.

Like I've told you before, all this stuff simply isn't your thing.
You'll never get anywhere with it, you lack the requisite intelligence.
I've met quite a few such less intelligent people in my time, and in
general they are agreeable, productive members of society.  I've met lots
more who, although intelligent enough, simply aren't interested in
computation theory.  Why should they be?

Because in this specific case the refutation of the HP proof
has an analogous refutation of the Tarski Undefinability
theorem.

In your dreams.

Theorems devised by mathematicians with vasly more intelligence than you,
and accepted by the wider community have proofs, not refutations.

When the TUT is refuted we can finally mathematically formalize
the notion of analytical truth. When we do this we now have the
basis for correcting the hallucination problem of LLM systems.

Tarski's Therem won't be refuted.  It's been proven.  Whatever you mean
by "formalising the nature of analytical truth" it won't have any impact
on real life, even if it were achievable.

You would do better to attend to your own delusions before trying to
correct those of LLMs.

When we do this we finally will have automated systems that
can detect and disprove lies in real time.

In your dreams.

But you're the first person I've come across who is both interested in it
and is too dim to understand it.  You're an enigma.

You think that I am too dim because you have already
formed such complete certainty in your mind that I
am wrong ....

Unlike you, I am mathematically educated.  I see you are dim because of
what you write, the falsehoods you assert, and your failure to understand
even the most basic elements of mathematical proof.

.... that you cannot pay close enough attention to exactly what I am
saying. My IQ really is in the top 3%

I can't pay close attention to exactly what you say because it is so
repetitive, so dull, and objectively wrong.  As for your IQ, you've been
shown to lie on this group many times before, and there're no grounds for
believing you're not lying now.

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

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).