1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • Re: Olcott and his LLMs

    From Richard Heathfield@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Aug 11 20:47:42 2025
    On 11/08/2025 20:40, olcott wrote:
    HHH(DD) merely needs
    to show that its input is not undecidable.

    Okay. You've had 22 years to chew it over. Decide.

    --
    Richard Heathfield
    Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
    Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mr Flibble@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 11 19:30:18 2025
    LLM agreements cited by Olcott stem from prompts that frame HHH narrowly
    as a simulator, not a full decider.

    This just confirms that Olcott is not interested in the Halting Problem,
    he is only interested in the Olcott Problem even though he seems to lack insight into this state of affairs.

    /Flibble

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mr Flibble@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Aug 11 21:09:38 2025
    On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 14:40:33 -0500, olcott wrote:

    On 8/11/2025 2:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    LLM agreements cited by Olcott stem from prompts that frame HHH
    narrowly as a simulator, not a full decider.

    This just confirms that Olcott is not interested in the Halting
    Problem,
    he is only interested in the Olcott Problem even though he seems to
    lack insight into this state of affairs.

    /Flibble

    I think that everyone else here understands that HHH need not be a full
    halt decider to refute the halting problem proof. HHH(DD) merely needs
    to show that its input is not undecidable.

    But it doesn't show that because DD() does the opposite of what HHH(DD)
    returns thus proving the Halting Problem diagonalization proofs are
    correct.

    /Flibble

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Aug 11 21:08:15 2025
    On 8/11/25 3:40 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/11/2025 2:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    LLM agreements cited by Olcott stem from prompts that frame HHH narrowly
    as a simulator, not a full decider.

    This just confirms that Olcott is not interested in the Halting Problem,
    he is only interested in the Olcott Problem even though he seems to lack
    insight into this state of affairs.

    /Flibble

    I think that everyone else here understands that
    HHH need not be a full halt decider to refute
    the halting problem proof. HHH(DD) merely needs
    to show that its input is not undecidable.


    But it does need to get this case correctly, but your "proof" is just
    based on category errors and lies, and thus is invalid.

    All you are doing is proving how stupid you are and that you don't care
    about truth so you turned yourself into a pathological liar.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Aug 11 21:11:38 2025
    On 8/11/25 3:40 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/11/2025 2:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    LLM agreements cited by Olcott stem from prompts that frame HHH narrowly
    as a simulator, not a full decider.

    This just confirms that Olcott is not interested in the Halting Problem,
    he is only interested in the Olcott Problem even though he seems to lack
    insight into this state of affairs.

    /Flibble

    I think that everyone else here understands that
    HHH need not be a full halt decider to refute
    the halting problem proof. HHH(DD) merely needs
    to show that its input is not undecidable.


    The problem is that is just a nonsense statement.

    "Inputs" are not undecidable, as any given DD, built on a specified HHH,
    has definite halting behavior.

    The PROBLEM is undecidable, as we can show that for every possible
    decider trying to compute it, it gets at least one case wrong, and thus
    there is no universally correct decider for it.

    This is first year logic theory stuff, and you don't understand it after decades of work.

    That just shows your stupidity.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)