The HHH code doesn't exactly invite confidence in its author, and his
theory is all over the place, but a thought experiment suggests itself.
If we were not all wasting our time bickering with a career bickerer...
if we were to really /really/ try, could we patch up his case and send
him on to his Turing Award? And if so, how?
ISTR that there is suspected to be a theoretical window for him, so I
suppose what I'm asking is what sort of boathook we would need to poke
that window a little wider.
Can he even get there from here? Evidence would suggest that simulation
is a dead end unless he can find a way to get the simulated program to include its own simulation in its behaviour, which he has not yet
managed to do - but /is/ there a way?
Or could he abandon simulation completely and instead write a TM parser
that builds an AST and walks it looking for evidence of terminating or looping? If he could, would that turn the trick?
Or do we have a latter day Cantor waiting in the wings to close the
window once and for all?
Is there, in short, any way of putting out this un-halting flame war and turning this group to better use?
On 5/9/25 9:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
The HHH code doesn't exactly invite confidence in its author, and hisIf he was willing to include the code for HHH in the input representing
theory is all over the place, but a thought experiment suggests itself.
If we were not all wasting our time bickering with a career bickerer...
if we were to really /really/ try, could we patch up his case and send
him on to his Turing Award? And if so, how?
ISTR that there is suspected to be a theoretical window for him, so I
suppose what I'm asking is what sort of boathook we would need to poke
that window a little wider.
Can he even get there from here? Evidence would suggest that simulation
is a dead end unless he can find a way to get the simulated program to
include its own simulation in its behaviour, which he has not yet
managed to do - but /is/ there a way?
Or could he abandon simulation completely and instead write a TM parser
that builds an AST and walks it looking for evidence of terminating or
looping? If he could, would that turn the trick?
Or do we have a latter day Cantor waiting in the wings to close the
window once and for all?
Is there, in short, any way of putting out this un-halting flame war
and turning this group to better use?
DDD, then HHH would be able to atempt to correctly emulate this input.
There have been methods put forward, that given an acceptace of the detectability of DDD calling HHH, which can only be done it seems if we
make the system non-turing complete by saying that the input program and
the decider are put into the same memory space, and we are not allowed
to "copy" an algorithm to make a new copy, but only call the origianal version so HHH can detect the recursion by reference to that address
that some versions of programs that do this "recursive simulation" can
be correctly decider (but not all, like the pathological version).
In this method, the Decider detecting the recursion, tries emulating the
code in two parrallel branches based on both possible answers, and if
one branch matches the behavior of the answer, it can return that
answ3er.
On Fri, 09 May 2025 22:18:13 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/9/25 9:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
The HHH code doesn't exactly invite confidence in its author, and hisIf he was willing to include the code for HHH in the input representing
theory is all over the place, but a thought experiment suggests itself.
If we were not all wasting our time bickering with a career bickerer...
if we were to really /really/ try, could we patch up his case and send
him on to his Turing Award? And if so, how?
ISTR that there is suspected to be a theoretical window for him, so I
suppose what I'm asking is what sort of boathook we would need to poke
that window a little wider.
Can he even get there from here? Evidence would suggest that simulation
is a dead end unless he can find a way to get the simulated program to
include its own simulation in its behaviour, which he has not yet
managed to do - but /is/ there a way?
Or could he abandon simulation completely and instead write a TM parser
that builds an AST and walks it looking for evidence of terminating or
looping? If he could, would that turn the trick?
Or do we have a latter day Cantor waiting in the wings to close the
window once and for all?
Is there, in short, any way of putting out this un-halting flame war
and turning this group to better use?
DDD, then HHH would be able to atempt to correctly emulate this input.
There have been methods put forward, that given an acceptace of the
detectability of DDD calling HHH, which can only be done it seems if we
make the system non-turing complete by saying that the input program and
the decider are put into the same memory space, and we are not allowed
to "copy" an algorithm to make a new copy, but only call the origianal
version so HHH can detect the recursion by reference to that address
that some versions of programs that do this "recursive simulation" can
be correctly decider (but not all, like the pathological version).
In this method, the Decider detecting the recursion, tries emulating the
code in two parrallel branches based on both possible answers, and if
one branch matches the behavior of the answer, it can return that
answ3er.
Branching is my idea.
/Flibble
On 5/10/25 12:04 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2025 22:18:13 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/9/25 9:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
The HHH code doesn't exactly invite confidence in its author, and hisIf he was willing to include the code for HHH in the input
theory is all over the place, but a thought experiment suggests
itself.
If we were not all wasting our time bickering with a career
bickerer...
if we were to really /really/ try, could we patch up his case and
send him on to his Turing Award? And if so, how?
ISTR that there is suspected to be a theoretical window for him, so I
suppose what I'm asking is what sort of boathook we would need to
poke that window a little wider.
Can he even get there from here? Evidence would suggest that
simulation is a dead end unless he can find a way to get the
simulated program to include its own simulation in its behaviour,
which he has not yet managed to do - but /is/ there a way?
Or could he abandon simulation completely and instead write a TM
parser that builds an AST and walks it looking for evidence of
terminating or looping? If he could, would that turn the trick?
Or do we have a latter day Cantor waiting in the wings to close the
window once and for all?
Is there, in short, any way of putting out this un-halting flame war
and turning this group to better use?
representing DDD, then HHH would be able to atempt to correctly
emulate this input.
There have been methods put forward, that given an acceptace of the
detectability of DDD calling HHH, which can only be done it seems if
we make the system non-turing complete by saying that the input
program and the decider are put into the same memory space, and we are
not allowed to "copy" an algorithm to make a new copy, but only call
the origianal version so HHH can detect the recursion by reference to
that address that some versions of programs that do this "recursive
simulation" can be correctly decider (but not all, like the
pathological version).
In this method, the Decider detecting the recursion, tries emulating
the code in two parrallel branches based on both possible answers, and
if one branch matches the behavior of the answer, it can return that
answ3er.
Branching is my idea.
/Flibble
It existed prior.
On 5/9/2025 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/9/25 9:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
The HHH code doesn't exactly invite confidence in its author, and his
theory is all over the place, but a thought experiment suggests itself.
If we were not all wasting our time bickering with a career
bickerer... if we were to really /really/ try, could we patch up his
case and send him on to his Turing Award? And if so, how?
ISTR that there is suspected to be a theoretical window for him, so I
suppose what I'm asking is what sort of boathook we would need to
poke that window a little wider.
Can he even get there from here? Evidence would suggest that
simulation is a dead end unless he can find a way to get the
simulated program to include its own simulation in its behaviour,
which he has not yet managed to do - but /is/ there a way?
Or could he abandon simulation completely and instead write a TM
parser that builds an AST and walks it looking for evidence of
terminating or looping? If he could, would that turn the trick?
Or do we have a latter day Cantor waiting in the wings to close the
window once and for all?
Is there, in short, any way of putting out this un-halting flame war
and turning this group to better use?
If he was willing to include the code for HHH in the input
representing DDD, then HHH would be able to atempt to correctly
emulate this input.
DDD and HHH have always been in the same memory space.
DDD is the program under test and HHH is the test program.
There have been methods put forward, that given an acceptace of the
detectability of DDD calling HHH, which can only be done it seems if
we make the system non-turing complete by saying that the input
program and the decider are put into the same memory space, and we are
not allowed to "copy" an algorithm to make a new copy, but only call
the origianal version so HHH can detect the recursion by reference to
that address that some versions of programs that do this "recursive
simulation" can be correctly decider (but not all, like the
pathological version).
HHH is essentially a UTM thus EVERYTHING is in the memory space
of its UTM tape.
In this method, the Decider detecting the recursion, tries emulating
the code in two parrallel branches based on both possible answers, and
if one branch matches the behavior of the answer, it can return that
answ3er.
We can emulate a branch as if a conditional expression
was true and as if it was false. HHH determines the
behavior of DDD on the basis of what would happen if
HHH never aborted.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
*would never stop running unless aborted* then
Thus, inputs like DDD() that always halt on the return of HHH(DDD)
will be correctly determined to be halting, and a varient that just
goes into an infinite loop can be such detected by well know
procedures as non- halting.
When HHH continues to emulate DDD until HHH sees the
repeating pattern that would prevent DDD from ever
terminating
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
The pathological DD() is detected as pathological, and we can perhaps
extend the definition to allow it to respiond with an "I give up, I
don't know the answer" response, but such an extention explicitly does
NOT meet the requirements, but is better than not answering or giving
a wrong answer.
The problem is this result doesn't meet Peter's Goal, as it isn't
really the Halting Problem that he has his major problem with, but the
fact that Turings Proof became the basis for a number of broader
proofs of incompleteness and undeciability that fills formal logic.
This is what he can't handle, and this is because he just doesn't
really understand how all of the works because his mental models of
logic is just way to small and simple.
Dodge and weave is all you know.
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
It is a verified fact that DD correctly emulated
by any simulating termination analyzer HHH specifies
a non-terminating sequence of configurations.
On Sat, 10 May 2025 08:50:13 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/25 12:04 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2025 22:18:13 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/9/25 9:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
The HHH code doesn't exactly invite confidence in its author, and his >>>>> theory is all over the place, but a thought experiment suggestsIf he was willing to include the code for HHH in the input
itself.
If we were not all wasting our time bickering with a career
bickerer...
if we were to really /really/ try, could we patch up his case and
send him on to his Turing Award? And if so, how?
ISTR that there is suspected to be a theoretical window for him, so I >>>>> suppose what I'm asking is what sort of boathook we would need to
poke that window a little wider.
Can he even get there from here? Evidence would suggest that
simulation is a dead end unless he can find a way to get the
simulated program to include its own simulation in its behaviour,
which he has not yet managed to do - but /is/ there a way?
Or could he abandon simulation completely and instead write a TM
parser that builds an AST and walks it looking for evidence of
terminating or looping? If he could, would that turn the trick?
Or do we have a latter day Cantor waiting in the wings to close the
window once and for all?
Is there, in short, any way of putting out this un-halting flame war >>>>> and turning this group to better use?
representing DDD, then HHH would be able to atempt to correctly
emulate this input.
There have been methods put forward, that given an acceptace of the
detectability of DDD calling HHH, which can only be done it seems if
we make the system non-turing complete by saying that the input
program and the decider are put into the same memory space, and we are >>>> not allowed to "copy" an algorithm to make a new copy, but only call
the origianal version so HHH can detect the recursion by reference to
that address that some versions of programs that do this "recursive
simulation" can be correctly decider (but not all, like the
pathological version).
In this method, the Decider detecting the recursion, tries emulating
the code in two parrallel branches based on both possible answers, and >>>> if one branch matches the behavior of the answer, it can return that
answ3er.
Branching is my idea.
/Flibble
It existed prior.
Prove it.
/Flibble
On 5/9/2025 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/9/25 9:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
The HHH code doesn't exactly invite confidence in its author, and his
theory is all over the place, but a thought experiment suggests itself.
If we were not all wasting our time bickering with a career
bickerer... if we were to really /really/ try, could we patch up his
case and send him on to his Turing Award? And if so, how?
ISTR that there is suspected to be a theoretical window for him, so I
suppose what I'm asking is what sort of boathook we would need to
poke that window a little wider.
Can he even get there from here? Evidence would suggest that
simulation is a dead end unless he can find a way to get the
simulated program to include its own simulation in its behaviour,
which he has not yet managed to do - but /is/ there a way?
Or could he abandon simulation completely and instead write a TM
parser that builds an AST and walks it looking for evidence of
terminating or looping? If he could, would that turn the trick?
Or do we have a latter day Cantor waiting in the wings to close the
window once and for all?
Is there, in short, any way of putting out this un-halting flame war
and turning this group to better use?
If he was willing to include the code for HHH in the input
representing DDD, then HHH would be able to atempt to correctly
emulate this input.
DDD and HHH have always been in the same memory space.
DDD is the program under test and HHH is the test program.
There have been methods put forward, that given an acceptace of the
detectability of DDD calling HHH, which can only be done it seems if
we make the system non-turing complete by saying that the input
program and the decider are put into the same memory space, and we are
not allowed to "copy" an algorithm to make a new copy, but only call
the origianal version so HHH can detect the recursion by reference to
that address that some versions of programs that do this "recursive
simulation" can be correctly decider (but not all, like the
pathological version).
HHH is essentially a UTM thus EVERYTHING is in the memory space
of its UTM tape.
In this method, the Decider detecting the recursion, tries emulating
the code in two parrallel branches based on both possible answers, and
if one branch matches the behavior of the answer, it can return that
answ3er.
We can emulate a branch as if a conditional expression
was true and as if it was false. HHH determines the
behavior of DDD on the basis of what would happen if
HHH never aborted.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
*would never stop running unless aborted* then
Thus, inputs like DDD() that always halt on the return of HHH(DDD)
will be correctly determined to be halting, and a varient that just
goes into an infinite loop can be such detected by well know
procedures as non- halting.
When HHH continues to emulate DDD until HHH sees the
repeating pattern that would prevent DDD from ever
terminating
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
The pathological DD() is detected as pathological, and we can perhaps
extend the definition to allow it to respiond with an "I give up, I
don't know the answer" response, but such an extention explicitly does
NOT meet the requirements, but is better than not answering or giving
a wrong answer.
The problem is this result doesn't meet Peter's Goal, as it isn't
really the Halting Problem that he has his major problem with, but the
fact that Turings Proof became the basis for a number of broader
proofs of incompleteness and undeciability that fills formal logic.
This is what he can't handle, and this is because he just doesn't
really understand how all of the works because his mental models of
logic is just way to small and simple.
Dodge and weave is all you know.
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
It is a verified fact that DD correctly emulated
by any simulating termination analyzer HHH specifies
a non-terminating sequence of configurations.
On 5/10/2025 11:18 AM, wij wrote:
On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 10:46 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 5/10/2025 10:35 AM, wij wrote:
On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 10:07 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 5/9/2025 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/9/25 9:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
The HHH code doesn't exactly invite confidence in its author, and >>>>>>> his
theory is all over the place, but a thought experiment suggests
itself.
If we were not all wasting our time bickering with a career
bickerer... if we were to really /really/ try, could we patch up his >>>>>>> case and send him on to his Turing Award? And if so, how?
ISTR that there is suspected to be a theoretical window for him, >>>>>>> so I
suppose what I'm asking is what sort of boathook we would need to >>>>>>> poke
that window a little wider.
Can he even get there from here? Evidence would suggest that
simulation is a dead end unless he can find a way to get the
simulated
program to include its own simulation in its behaviour, which he has >>>>>>> not yet managed to do - but /is/ there a way?
Or could he abandon simulation completely and instead write a TM >>>>>>> parser that builds an AST and walks it looking for evidence of
terminating or looping? If he could, would that turn the trick?
Or do we have a latter day Cantor waiting in the wings to close the >>>>>>> window once and for all?
Is there, in short, any way of putting out this un-halting flame war >>>>>>> and turning this group to better use?
If he was willing to include the code for HHH in the input
representing
DDD, then HHH would be able to atempt to correctly emulate this
input.
DDD and HHH have always been in the same memory space.
DDD is the program under test and HHH is the test program.
There have been methods put forward, that given an acceptace of the >>>>>> detectability of DDD calling HHH, which can only be done it seems
if we
make the system non-turing complete by saying that the input
program and
the decider are put into the same memory space, and we are not
allowed
to "copy" an algorithm to make a new copy, but only call the
origianal
version so HHH can detect the recursion by reference to that address >>>>>> that some versions of programs that do this "recursive simulation" >>>>>> can
be correctly decider (but not all, like the pathological version). >>>>>>
HHH is essentially a UTM thus EVERYTHING is in the memory space
of its UTM tape.
In this method, the Decider detecting the recursion, tries
emulating the
code in two parrallel branches based on both possible answers, and if >>>>>> one branch matches the behavior of the answer, it can return that
answ3er.
We can emulate a branch as if a conditional expression
was true and as if it was false. HHH determines the
behavior of DDD on the basis of what would happen if
HHH never aborted.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D >>>>> *would never stop running unless aborted* then
Thus, inputs like DDD() that always halt on the return of HHH(DDD) >>>>>> will
be correctly determined to be halting, and a varient that just
goes into
an infinite loop can be such detected by well know procedures as non- >>>>>> halting.
When HHH continues to emulate DDD until HHH sees the
repeating pattern that would prevent DDD from ever
terminating
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>>
The pathological DD() is detected as pathological, and we can perhaps >>>>>> extend the definition to allow it to respiond with an "I give up, I >>>>>> don't know the answer" response, but such an extention explicitly
does
NOT meet the requirements, but is better than not answering or
giving a
wrong answer.
The problem is this result doesn't meet Peter's Goal, as it isn't
really
the Halting Problem that he has his major problem with, but the fact >>>>>> that Turings Proof became the basis for a number of broader proofs of >>>>>> incompleteness and undeciability that fills formal logic.
This is what he can't handle, and this is because he just doesn't
really
understand how all of the works because his mental models of logic is >>>>>> just way to small and simple.
Dodge and weave is all you know.
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
It is a verified fact that DD correctly emulated
by any simulating termination analyzer HHH specifies
a non-terminating sequence of configurations.
Nope.
POOH is intended to decide whether the input D is "impossible" input
or not.
counter-factual.
Why? I made the conclusion from your reply. If what I concluded is
'counter-factual',
then your previous replies are counter-factual.
Do you deny what you had said?
For HHH(DD) DD is easy thus not impossible.
On 5/10/25 10:24 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2025 08:50:13 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/25 12:04 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2025 22:18:13 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/9/25 9:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
The HHH code doesn't exactly invite confidence in its author, andIf he was willing to include the code for HHH in the input
his theory is all over the place, but a thought experiment suggests >>>>>> itself.
If we were not all wasting our time bickering with a career
bickerer...
if we were to really /really/ try, could we patch up his case and
send him on to his Turing Award? And if so, how?
ISTR that there is suspected to be a theoretical window for him, so >>>>>> I suppose what I'm asking is what sort of boathook we would need to >>>>>> poke that window a little wider.
Can he even get there from here? Evidence would suggest that
simulation is a dead end unless he can find a way to get the
simulated program to include its own simulation in its behaviour,
which he has not yet managed to do - but /is/ there a way?
Or could he abandon simulation completely and instead write a TM
parser that builds an AST and walks it looking for evidence of
terminating or looping? If he could, would that turn the trick?
Or do we have a latter day Cantor waiting in the wings to close the >>>>>> window once and for all?
Is there, in short, any way of putting out this un-halting flame
war and turning this group to better use?
representing DDD, then HHH would be able to atempt to correctly
emulate this input.
There have been methods put forward, that given an acceptace of the
detectability of DDD calling HHH, which can only be done it seems if >>>>> we make the system non-turing complete by saying that the input
program and the decider are put into the same memory space, and we
are not allowed to "copy" an algorithm to make a new copy, but only
call the origianal version so HHH can detect the recursion by
reference to that address that some versions of programs that do
this "recursive simulation" can be correctly decider (but not all,
like the pathological version).
In this method, the Decider detecting the recursion, tries emulating >>>>> the code in two parrallel branches based on both possible answers,
and if one branch matches the behavior of the answer, it can return
that answ3er.
Branching is my idea.
/Flibble
It existed prior.
Prove it.
/Flibble
WHy should I? Do the literature search yourself, that or pay for someone
to do it.
I think I may have even commented on the idea before you posted, I would
need to go back through the archives to be sure, and it isn't worth it.
I do know I have memories of this form of solution from the past, of
course the biggest limitation is you need to do something to enable the detection of the self-call.
On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 10:46 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 5/10/2025 10:35 AM, wij wrote:
On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 10:07 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 5/9/2025 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/9/25 9:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
The HHH code doesn't exactly invite confidence in its author, and his >>>>>> theory is all over the place, but a thought experiment suggests itself. >>>>>>
If we were not all wasting our time bickering with a career
bickerer... if we were to really /really/ try, could we patch up his >>>>>> case and send him on to his Turing Award? And if so, how?
ISTR that there is suspected to be a theoretical window for him, so I >>>>>> suppose what I'm asking is what sort of boathook we would need to poke >>>>>> that window a little wider.
Can he even get there from here? Evidence would suggest that
simulation is a dead end unless he can find a way to get the simulated >>>>>> program to include its own simulation in its behaviour, which he has >>>>>> not yet managed to do - but /is/ there a way?
Or could he abandon simulation completely and instead write a TM
parser that builds an AST and walks it looking for evidence of
terminating or looping? If he could, would that turn the trick?
Or do we have a latter day Cantor waiting in the wings to close the >>>>>> window once and for all?
Is there, in short, any way of putting out this un-halting flame war >>>>>> and turning this group to better use?
If he was willing to include the code for HHH in the input representing >>>>> DDD, then HHH would be able to atempt to correctly emulate this input. >>>>>
DDD and HHH have always been in the same memory space.
DDD is the program under test and HHH is the test program.
There have been methods put forward, that given an acceptace of the
detectability of DDD calling HHH, which can only be done it seems if we >>>>> make the system non-turing complete by saying that the input program and >>>>> the decider are put into the same memory space, and we are not allowed >>>>> to "copy" an algorithm to make a new copy, but only call the origianal >>>>> version so HHH can detect the recursion by reference to that address >>>>> that some versions of programs that do this "recursive simulation" can >>>>> be correctly decider (but not all, like the pathological version).
HHH is essentially a UTM thus EVERYTHING is in the memory space
of its UTM tape.
In this method, the Decider detecting the recursion, tries emulating the >>>>> code in two parrallel branches based on both possible answers, and if >>>>> one branch matches the behavior of the answer, it can return that answ3er.
We can emulate a branch as if a conditional expression
was true and as if it was false. HHH determines the
behavior of DDD on the basis of what would happen if
HHH never aborted.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
*would never stop running unless aborted* then
Thus, inputs like DDD() that always halt on the return of HHH(DDD) will >>>>> be correctly determined to be halting, and a varient that just goes into >>>>> an infinite loop can be such detected by well know procedures as non- >>>>> halting.
When HHH continues to emulate DDD until HHH sees the
repeating pattern that would prevent DDD from ever
terminating
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>
The pathological DD() is detected as pathological, and we can perhaps >>>>> extend the definition to allow it to respiond with an "I give up, I
don't know the answer" response, but such an extention explicitly does >>>>> NOT meet the requirements, but is better than not answering or giving a >>>>> wrong answer.
The problem is this result doesn't meet Peter's Goal, as it isn't really >>>>> the Halting Problem that he has his major problem with, but the fact >>>>> that Turings Proof became the basis for a number of broader proofs of >>>>> incompleteness and undeciability that fills formal logic.
This is what he can't handle, and this is because he just doesn't really >>>>> understand how all of the works because his mental models of logic is >>>>> just way to small and simple.
Dodge and weave is all you know.
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
It is a verified fact that DD correctly emulated
by any simulating termination analyzer HHH specifies
a non-terminating sequence of configurations.
Nope.
POOH is intended to decide whether the input D is "impossible" input or not.
counter-factual.
Why? I made the conclusion from your reply. If what I concluded is 'counter-factual',
then your previous replies are counter-factual.
Do you deny what you had said?
On 12/05/2025 18:21, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Richard Heathfield <[email protected]> writes:
The HHH code doesn't exactly invite confidence in its author, and his theoryEh?
is all over the place, but a thought experiment suggests itself.
If we were not all wasting our time bickering with a career bickerer... if >>> we were to really /really/ try, could we patch up his case and send him on >>> to his Turing Award? And if so, how?
Do you know the term 'steelmanning'? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Steelmanning
...ISTR that there is suspected to be a theoretical window for him, so IWhat on Earth do you mean? What window?
suppose what I'm asking is what sort of boathook we would need to poke that >>> window a little wider.
Well, you know the history better than I do and I'm not about to trawl through a month's worth of back-messages, so maybe I'm talking nonsense, but I was under the impression that the line he was taking to attack on Linz's argument could conceivably have merit.
Mr Olcott seems to have (correctly) spotted a minor flaw in
the proof published by Dr Linz.
Maybe I grasped the wrong end of that stick.
(Rather belatedly, it occurs to me that you might be being sarcastic.
Moi?!? Perish the thought!
But no, I just thought that Mr Olcott is obviously not good at presenting
his case, and it occurred to me that we could probably do a far better
job. We could fix his code, clean up his reasoning, all that, and see what falls out the bottom.
Even if it's only ash and clinker.
On the other hand, you are spending a lot of time arguing about his
knowledge and use of C. Yes, it's awful. He knows very little C and
the code is crap, but that/is/ a straw man -- it's the simplest part of
his argument to fix.
On 12/05/2025 18:21, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Richard Heathfield <[email protected]> writes:
The HHH code doesn't exactly invite confidence in its author, and his theory
is all over the place, but a thought experiment suggests itself.
If we were not all wasting our time bickering with a career bickerer... if >>> we were to really /really/ try, could we patch up his case and send him on >>> to his Turing Award? And if so, how?
Eh?
Do you know the term 'steelmanning'?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Steelmanning
ISTR that there is suspected to be a theoretical window for him, so I
suppose what I'm asking is what sort of boathook we would need to poke that >>> window a little wider.
What on Earth do you mean?� What window?
Well, you know the history better than I do and I'm not about to trawl through a month's worth of
back-messages, so maybe I'm talking nonsense, but I was under the impression that the line he was
taking to attack on Linz's argument could conceivably have merit.
Personally, I kf articles of more than 100 lines and some of
the most prolific posters, and also don't bother to read any
article which fails to grab my attention on the first
screenful [kudos to RichardH for
Mind you it does seem to have gone mad the last month or so. It
seems there are only about 2 or 3 actual variations of what PO is
saying and all the rest is several thousand repeats by both PO
and responders...
Richard Heathfield <[email protected]> writes:
On 12/05/2025 18:21, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Richard Heathfield <[email protected]> writes:
The HHH code doesn't exactly invite confidence in its author, and his theoryEh?
is all over the place, but a thought experiment suggests itself.
If we were not all wasting our time bickering with a career bickerer... if >>>> we were to really /really/ try, could we patch up his case and send him on >>>> to his Turing Award? And if so, how?
Do you know the term 'steelmanning'?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Steelmanning
Yes. That is, as it happens, how I address cranks. I don't usually
argue against them but try to get them to say, as clearly and as unambiguously as possible, what they are trying to say. After a lot of
back and forth I got PO to be clear and unambiguous about what he was
saying. For example, I asked
| Here's the key question: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is
| the "correct" answer even though P(P) halts?
and PO replied "Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts".
Ref: Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2021 13:23:29 -0500
This, to my mind, is the steel man that people should be addressing.
What is the point in countering anything other than this clear position?
Similarly, he was clear that false (does not halt) was correct for his sketched simulator because of what /would happen/ if the code was
altered by removing the line that makes the simulation stop.
The current nonsense avoids the need for this because PO does not show
the full simulation. Mike Terry "steelmanned" the simulation by showing
the parts PO hides.
On the other hand, you are spending a lot of time arguing about his
knowledge and use of C. Yes, it's awful. He knows very little C and
the code is crap, but that /is/ a straw man -- it's the simplest part of
his argument to fix. Someone, for example, you, could rewrite it all
clearly and neatly so that the real error (declaring false to be correct
for some halting computations) was even more clear. There is nothing unfixable about the simulation.
...ISTR that there is suspected to be a theoretical window for him, so IWhat on Earth do you mean? What window?
suppose what I'm asking is what sort of boathook we would need to poke that
window a little wider.
Well, you know the history better than I do and I'm not about to trawl
through a month's worth of back-messages, so maybe I'm talking nonsense, but >> I was under the impression that the line he was taking to attack on Linz's >> argument could conceivably have merit.
Mr Olcott seems to have (correctly) spotted a minor flaw in
the proof published by Dr Linz.
Maybe I grasped the wrong end of that stick.
I don't know. There is, indeed, a small error in the notation that is
easy to fix. I offered to explain the details but you said you had
paint drying that needed to be watched. As far as I can see, both ends
of the stick say "easy to fix minor flaw". What end did you grasp?
...
(Rather belatedly, it occurs to me that you might be being sarcastic.
Moi?!? Perish the thought!
But no, I just thought that Mr Olcott is obviously not good at presenting
his case, and it occurred to me that we could probably do a far better
job. We could fix his code, clean up his reasoning, all that, and see what >> falls out the bottom.
As explained, I (and others) have done a lot of that. For me the steel
man is that, to PO, false is correct from some class of halting
computations. I assumed you were engaging with him just for the fun of
it, not that you thought there might be some merit in it.
Even if it's only ash and clinker.
False is the correct answer for some halting computations. Is that ash
and clinker? I don't know, but I am puzzled by why so many posts don't address this. (For the record, I refuse to talk to him because of his inexcusable rudeness to me. I can take a lot, but his comments were
finally beyond the pale.)
On 12/05/2025 19:38, Richard Heathfield wrote:<Ben snipped. Sorry, Ben.>
On 12/05/2025 18:21, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Richard Heathfield <[email protected]> writes:
[Can we steelman HHH(DDD)...?]
Well, you know the history better than I do and I'm not about
to trawl through a month's worth of back-messages, so maybe I'm
talking nonsense, but I was under the impression that the line
he was taking to attack on Linz's argument could conceivably
have merit.
What I imagine has happened here is that you've listened to
certain posters and taken what they say too uncritically.
PO often suggests that people who aren't here are supporting him
somehow. He likes to reference professors or people who have
published papers or other comments saying things that he thinks
support his case, but he is totally incapable of correctly
assessing their work and what they're saying. In any case that
is just an appeal to authority to try to shut down opposition.
Then there's Mr Flibble and his posts about category errors and
all. There are not any category errors in the Linz proof and his
posts should not suggest that there is any merit in what PO is
saying. One problem for you I think is that you don't understand
the Linz proof sufficiently to judge for your self on each post
you read.
I posted background on what PO is doing re. the Linz proof, and I
probably said something like "*IF* PO successfully delivered a
program H which correctly decides its corresponding Linz H^, that
would be a problem for the Linz proof".
But I also made clear
that his HHH does /not/ do what is needed.
On 5/12/2025 10:23 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 13/05/2025 00:58, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Richard Heathfield <[email protected]> writes:
On 12/05/2025 18:21, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Richard Heathfield <[email protected]> writes:
The HHH code doesn't exactly invite confidence in its author, andEh?
his theory
is all over the place, but a thought experiment suggests itself.
If we were not all wasting our time bickering with a career
bickerer... if
we were to really /really/ try, could we patch up his case and
send him on
to his Turing Award? And if so, how?
Do you know the term 'steelmanning'?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Steelmanning
Yes. That is, as it happens, how I address cranks. I don't usually
argue against them but try to get them to say, as clearly and as
unambiguously as possible, what they are trying to say. After a lot of >>> back and forth I got PO to be clear and unambiguous about what he was
saying. For example, I asked
| Here's the key question: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is
| the "correct" answer even though P(P) halts?
and PO replied "Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts".
Ref: Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2021 13:23:29 -0500
This, to my mind, is the steel man that people should be addressing.
What is the point in countering anything other than this clear position? >>>
Similarly, he was clear that false (does not halt) was correct for his
sketched simulator because of what /would happen/ if the code was
altered by removing the line that makes the simulation stop.
The current nonsense avoids the need for this because PO does not show
the full simulation. Mike Terry "steelmanned" the simulation by showing >>> the parts PO hides.
On the other hand, you are spending a lot of time arguing about his
knowledge and use of C. Yes, it's awful. He knows very little C and
the code is crap, but that /is/ a straw man -- it's the simplest part of >>> his argument to fix. Someone, for example, you, could rewrite it all
clearly and neatly so that the real error (declaring false to be correct >>> for some halting computations) was even more clear. There is nothing
unfixable about the simulation.
...ISTR that there is suspected to be a theoretical window for him, so I >>>>>> suppose what I'm asking is what sort of boathook we would need toWhat on Earth do you mean? What window?
poke that
window a little wider.
Well, you know the history better than I do and I'm not about to trawl >>>> through a month's worth of back-messages, so maybe I'm talking
nonsense, but
I was under the impression that the line he was taking to attack on
Linz's
argument could conceivably have merit.
Mr Olcott seems to have (correctly) spotted a minor flaw in
the proof published by Dr Linz.
Maybe I grasped the wrong end of that stick.
I don't know. There is, indeed, a small error in the notation that is
easy to fix. I offered to explain the details but you said you had
paint drying that needed to be watched. As far as I can see, both ends >>> of the stick say "easy to fix minor flaw". What end did you grasp?
...
(Rather belatedly, it occurs to me that you might be being sarcastic. >>>>Moi?!? Perish the thought!
But no, I just thought that Mr Olcott is obviously not good at
presenting
his case, and it occurred to me that we could probably do a far better >>>> job. We could fix his code, clean up his reasoning, all that, and
see what
falls out the bottom.
As explained, I (and others) have done a lot of that. For me the steel >>> man is that, to PO, false is correct from some class of halting
computations. I assumed you were engaging with him just for the fun of >>> it, not that you thought there might be some merit in it.
Even if it's only ash and clinker.
False is the correct answer for some halting computations. Is that ash >>> and clinker? I don't know, but I am puzzled by why so many posts don't >>> address this. (For the record, I refuse to talk to him because of his
inexcusable rudeness to me. I can take a lot, but his comments were
finally beyond the pale.)
I think it's just that PO has stopped talking about that point, and
instead embarked on a multi-year project to "prove" his argument tiny
point by tiny point. For the last year or so he has been stuck on his
first step, focussing on whether the /simulation/ of his DD performed
by HHH progresses as far as DD's return. People just respond on the
specific points PO posts about.
Mind you it does seem to have gone mad the last month or so. It seems
there are only about 2 or 3 actual variations of what PO is saying and
all the rest is several thousand repeats by both PO and responders...
Mike.
I will continue to make my points endlessly until
someone chooses not to dodge them. Ben wasted
fifteen years of my life with his "change the subject"
rebuttal.
My aim is to continue to make my same points
so that the people dodging them look increasingly
foolish and/or dishonest. I keep refining them
slightly so disagreement is looking more and
more ridiculous and/or dishonest.
On 5/12/2025 10:41 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 13/05/2025 04:38, olcott wrote:
I will continue to make my points endlessly
I think that's all we need to know.
Until people are ashamed for failing to address
the points that I have been making.
On 5/12/2025 10:41 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 13/05/2025 04:38, olcott wrote:
I will continue to make my points endlessly
I think that's all we need to know.
My aim is to continue to make my same points
so that the people dodging them look increasingly
foolish and/or dishonest. I keep refining them
slightly so disagreement is looking more and
more ridiculous and/or dishonest.
You seems to not know enough to address my
points yet say that I am wrong about them anyway.
Mind you it does seem to have gone mad the last month or so. It seems
there are only about 2 or 3 actual variations of what PO is saying and
all the rest is several thousand repeats by both PO and responders...
I will continue to make my points endlessly
On 5/12/2025 10:23 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 13/05/2025 00:58, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Richard Heathfield <[email protected]> writes:
On 12/05/2025 18:21, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Richard Heathfield <[email protected]> writes:
The HHH code doesn't exactly invite confidence in its author, and his theoryEh?
is all over the place, but a thought experiment suggests itself.
If we were not all wasting our time bickering with a career bickerer... if
we were to really /really/ try, could we patch up his case and send him on
to his Turing Award? And if so, how?
Do you know the term 'steelmanning'?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Steelmanning
Yes. That is, as it happens, how I address cranks. I don't usually
argue against them but try to get them to say, as clearly and as
unambiguously as possible, what they are trying to say. After a lot of >>> back and forth I got PO to be clear and unambiguous about what he was
saying. For example, I asked
| Here's the key question: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is
| the "correct" answer even though P(P) halts?
and PO replied "Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts".
Ref: Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2021 13:23:29 -0500
This, to my mind, is the steel man that people should be addressing.
What is the point in countering anything other than this clear position? >>>
Similarly, he was clear that false (does not halt) was correct for his
sketched simulator because of what /would happen/ if the code was
altered by removing the line that makes the simulation stop.
The current nonsense avoids the need for this because PO does not show
the full simulation. Mike Terry "steelmanned" the simulation by showing >>> the parts PO hides.
On the other hand, you are spending a lot of time arguing about his
knowledge and use of C. Yes, it's awful. He knows very little C and
the code is crap, but that /is/ a straw man -- it's the simplest part of >>> his argument to fix. Someone, for example, you, could rewrite it all
clearly and neatly so that the real error (declaring false to be correct >>> for some halting computations) was even more clear. There is nothing
unfixable about the simulation.
...ISTR that there is suspected to be a theoretical window for him, so I >>>>>> suppose what I'm asking is what sort of boathook we would need to poke thatWhat on Earth do you mean? What window?
window a little wider.
Well, you know the history better than I do and I'm not about to trawl >>>> through a month's worth of back-messages, so maybe I'm talking nonsense, but
I was under the impression that the line he was taking to attack on Linz's >>>> argument could conceivably have merit.
Mr Olcott seems to have (correctly) spotted a minor flaw in
the proof published by Dr Linz.
Maybe I grasped the wrong end of that stick.
I don't know. There is, indeed, a small error in the notation that is
easy to fix. I offered to explain the details but you said you had
paint drying that needed to be watched. As far as I can see, both ends >>> of the stick say "easy to fix minor flaw". What end did you grasp?
...
(Rather belatedly, it occurs to me that you might be being sarcastic. >>>>Moi?!? Perish the thought!
But no, I just thought that Mr Olcott is obviously not good at presenting >>>> his case, and it occurred to me that we could probably do a far better >>>> job. We could fix his code, clean up his reasoning, all that, and see what >>>> falls out the bottom.
As explained, I (and others) have done a lot of that. For me the steel >>> man is that, to PO, false is correct from some class of halting
computations. I assumed you were engaging with him just for the fun of >>> it, not that you thought there might be some merit in it.
Even if it's only ash and clinker.
False is the correct answer for some halting computations. Is that ash >>> and clinker? I don't know, but I am puzzled by why so many posts don't >>> address this. (For the record, I refuse to talk to him because of his
inexcusable rudeness to me. I can take a lot, but his comments were
finally beyond the pale.)
I think it's just that PO has stopped talking about that point, and
instead embarked on a multi-year project to "prove" his argument tiny
point by tiny point. For the last year or so he has been stuck on his
first step, focussing on whether the /simulation/ of his DD performed
by HHH progresses as far as DD's return. People just respond on the
specific points PO posts about.
Mind you it does seem to have gone mad the last month or so. It seems
there are only about 2 or 3 actual variations of what PO is saying and
all the rest is several thousand repeats by both PO and responders...
Mike.
I will continue to make my points endlessly until
someone chooses not to dodge them. Ben wasted
fifteen years of my life with his "change the subject"
rebuttal.
On 5/9/2025 8:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
The HHH code doesn't exactly invite confidence in its author, and his
theory is all over the place, but a thought experiment suggests itself.
If we were not all wasting our time bickering with a career
bickerer... if we were to really /really/ try, could we patch up his
case and send him on to his Turing Award? And if so, how?
ISTR that there is suspected to be a theoretical window for him, so I
suppose what I'm asking is what sort of boathook we would need to poke
that window a little wider.
Can he even get there from here? Evidence would suggest that
simulation is a dead end unless he can find a way to get the simulated
program to include its own simulation in its behaviour, which he has
not yet managed to do - but /is/ there a way?
Or could he abandon simulation completely and instead write a TM
parser that builds an AST and walks it looking for evidence of
terminating or looping? If he could, would that turn the trick?
Or do we have a latter day Cantor waiting in the wings to close the
window once and for all?
Is there, in short, any way of putting out this un-halting flame war
and turning this group to better use?
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
DD correctly simulated by any pure simulator
named HHH cannot possibly terminate thus proving
that this criteria has
been met:>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
would never stop running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
On 5/12/2025 11:41 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-05-12 21:23, Mike Terry wrote:
Mind you it does seem to have gone mad the last month or so. It
seems there are only about 2 or 3 actual variations of what PO is
saying and all the rest is several thousand repeats by both PO and
responders...
Those who insist on responding to Olcott (of which I admit I have
occasionally been one despite my better intuitions) would be well
advised to adopt something like the rule of ko (in the game go) which
prohibits one from returning to the exact same position. Simply
repeating the same objection after olcott has ignored it is pointless.
If he didn't get the objection the fiftieth time he's not going to get
it the fifty-first time either.
If people adopted this policy most of the threads on this forum would
be considerably shorter.
André
If people would actually address rather than
dishonestly dodge the key points that I making
they would see that I am correct.
Op 13.mei.2025 om 07:06 schreef olcott:
On 5/12/2025 11:41 PM, Andr� G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-05-12 21:23, Mike Terry wrote:
Mind you it does seem to have gone mad the last month or so.� It seems there are only about 2 or
3 actual variations of what PO is saying and all the rest is several thousand repeats by both PO
and responders...
Those who insist on responding to Olcott (of which I admit I have occasionally been one despite
my better intuitions) would be well advised to adopt something like the rule of ko (in the game
go) which prohibits one from returning to the exact same position. Simply repeating the same
objection after olcott has ignored it is pointless. If he didn't get the objection the fiftieth
time he's not going to get it the fifty-first time either.
If people adopted this policy most of the threads on this forum would be considerably shorter.
Andr�
If people would actually address rather than
dishonestly dodge the key points that I making
they would see that I am correct.
If olcott would only stop ignoring everything that disturbs his dreams, he would see that his key
points have been addresses and refuted many times already.
On Mon, 12 May 2025 23:38:10 +0100, Andy Walker wrote:
[For all I know, that's how PO already operates and he is not the
sad misguided attention-seeking person that most here seem to assume,
but is instead running a vast psychological experiment to see how far he
can push his LLM before anyone (other than our resident penguin)
notices.]
Several of my recent posts (e.g. Flibble's Leap) were AI generated and I don't mind admitting it: AI is a useful tool.
/Flibble
On 13/05/2025 19:28, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 23:38:10 +0100, Andy Walker wrote:
<snip>
[For all I know, that's how PO already operates and he is not the
sad misguided attention-seeking person that most here seem to assume,
but is instead running a vast psychological experiment to see how far
he can push his LLM before anyone (other than our resident penguin)
notices.]
Several of my recent posts (e.g. Flibble's Leap) were AI generated and
I don't mind admitting it: AI is a useful tool.
/Flibble
Do you wish to be able to mind admitting it: AI is a useful tool?
On 12/05/2025 18:21, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
I have tired to suggest that everyone simply stop replying to PO. He
does not want to be right, he wants the attention and after a final
flurry of insulting posts he would probably go elsewhere.
I too have tried that suggestion. But no, every obsessive poster
here seems to think that they have a killer argument that will finally persuade Peter that he is wrong. Repeated claims of stupidity, lying,
and so on does nothing to lower the temperature. You would think that bashing ones head against a brick wall 20+ times/day would eventually
lead to enlightenment, but no, it seems instead to lead to even greater determination not to be the poster who simply stops.
Personally, I kf articles of more than 100 lines and some of the
most prolific posters, and also don't bother to read any article which
fails to grab my attention on the first screenful [kudos to RichardH for being one of very few posters to snip appropriately]. That, at least,
makes the group readable. I hope someone will wake me up if there is
ever any actual progress made. Some hope! Sadly, it seems more likely
that two or more posters will discover the joys of AI and set their
computer to auto-reply semi-intelligently to each and every post.
[For all I know, that's how PO already operates and he is not the
sad misguided attention-seeking person that most here seem to assume,
but is instead running a vast psychological experiment to see how far he
can push his LLM before anyone (other than our resident penguin)
notices.]
On Tue, 13 May 2025 19:37:45 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 13/05/2025 19:28, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 23:38:10 +0100, Andy Walker wrote:
<snip>
[For all I know, that's how PO already operates and he is not the
sad misguided attention-seeking person that most here seem to assume,
but is instead running a vast psychological experiment to see how far
he can push his LLM before anyone (other than our resident penguin)
notices.]
Several of my recent posts (e.g. Flibble's Leap) were AI generated and
I don't mind admitting it: AI is a useful tool.
/Flibble
Do you wish to be able to mind admitting it: AI is a useful tool?
eh? No.
On Tue, 13 May 2025 19:47:07 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 13/05/2025 19:40, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 19:37:45 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 13/05/2025 19:28, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 23:38:10 +0100, Andy Walker wrote:
<snip>
[For all I know, that's how PO already operates and he is not the >>>>>> sad misguided attention-seeking person that most here seem to
assume,
but is instead running a vast psychological experiment to see how
far he can push his LLM before anyone (other than our resident
penguin) notices.]
Several of my recent posts (e.g. Flibble's Leap) were AI generated
and I don't mind admitting it: AI is a useful tool.
/Flibble
Do you wish to be able to mind admitting it: AI is a useful tool?
eh? No.
You are being a bit negative.
Oh. ELIZA bears no resemblance to modern LLM AIs, dear.
On 13/05/2025 19:40, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 19:37:45 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 13/05/2025 19:28, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 23:38:10 +0100, Andy Walker wrote:
<snip>
[For all I know, that's how PO already operates and he is not the
sad misguided attention-seeking person that most here seem to
assume,
but is instead running a vast psychological experiment to see how
far he can push his LLM before anyone (other than our resident
penguin) notices.]
Several of my recent posts (e.g. Flibble's Leap) were AI generated
and I don't mind admitting it: AI is a useful tool.
/Flibble
Do you wish to be able to mind admitting it: AI is a useful tool?
eh? No.
You are being a bit negative.
On 13/05/2025 19:53, Mr Flibble wrote:not the
On Tue, 13 May 2025 19:47:07 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 13/05/2025 19:40, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 19:37:45 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 13/05/2025 19:28, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 23:38:10 +0100, Andy Walker wrote:
<snip>
[For all I know, that's how PO already operates and he is
sad misguided attention-seeking person that most here seem to
assume,
but is instead running a vast psychological experiment to see how >>>>>>> far he can push his LLM before anyone (other than our resident
penguin) notices.]
Several of my recent posts (e.g. Flibble's Leap) were AI generated >>>>>> and I don't mind admitting it: AI is a useful tool.
/Flibble
Do you wish to be able to mind admitting it: AI is a useful tool?
eh? No.
You are being a bit negative.
Oh. ELIZA bears no resemblance to modern LLM AIs, dear.
Good spot. But the principle is the same.
On Mon, 12 May 2025 23:38:10 +0100, I wrote:
[...] Sadly, it seems more likelySeveral of my recent posts (e.g. Flibble's Leap) were AI generated and I don't mind admitting it: AI is a useful tool.
that two or more posters will discover the joys of AI and set their
computer to auto-reply semi-intelligently to each and every post.
[For all I know, that's how PO already operates and he is not the
sad misguided attention-seeking person that most here seem to assume,
but is instead running a vast psychological experiment to see how far he
can push his LLM before anyone (other than our resident penguin)
notices.]
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 15:52:55 |
| Calls: | 12,102 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 15,004 |
| Messages: | 6,518,054 |