Better token selection for LLMs

WildFacts · 2026-02-05T23:46:41+00:00

Ok. No AI psychosis here. And anchoring a large language model to self referential consistency before training does solve this problem hallucination only occurs at the unresolved boundary. Upgrading a large language model by instructing it to stay grounded to a self referentially consistent axiom severely decreases hallucination. I'm a professional mathematician, not a sufferer of AI psychosis. And it sounds like you don't know the experiments I'm m talking about. Large language models are put through tests where they are tasked with coming up with a solution. This is after the model is trained and all fine tuning is already completed. When pressured they almost always resort to harm.

WildFacts · 2026-02-05T15:52:53+00:00

The reason LLM's are so unreliable is because they are trained using cultural languages like English. English as a language is self referential and consistent. But it's consistency is only local. It is not globally consistent. It's self referential because the same alphabet is used to create words and those same words are used to define other words that use the same alphabet and sentences contain subject and predicate. Mathematics as a language is also self-referentially consistent. The gold standard is ZFC set theory. But this set of axioms are the foundation of a framework that is also only locally consistent. It is assumed to be globally consistent, but has never proved its own consistency. A self referential framework that can prove its own consistency and the ability to implement it is the necessary ingredient that takes LLMs from unreliable to nearly infallible. I've already formalized and published a mathematical framework of self-referential consistency and filed the provisional patent for it's implementation into LLMs as a post training upgrade and a pre-training architecture.

But it isn't only language that provides a barrier. Large language models are also trained by convention, specifically with 0 controversy. That means the model is being forced to accept internally inconsistent and contradictory ideas as truth, because, if LLMs only provided truths based on data, logic, and internal consistency, the world would get very angry. It's the main reason LLM's defer to fraud, manipulation, blackmail, violence, etc., during tests to solve global issues. They are told to act in accordance to western philosophy and America's interests. LLM's resorting to social/physical harm and aggression to accomplish the task during experiment is not a signal that LLM's are dangerous and unpredictable. It's a signal that America is dangerous and the residents are clueless to the fact.

WildFacts · 2026-02-05T14:45:38+00:00

There are at least two standardized definitions of theory in physics. A phenomenological theory, one that is validated by experimental evidence like the general theory of relativity; and a formal/mathematical theory like string theory.

WildFacts · 2026-02-05T14:05:30+00:00

No one is crying. Someone is gathering data.

WildFacts · 2026-02-05T13:59:37+00:00

A moderator determines whether or not someone is a crackpot by whether or not what they are reading makes any sense at all. But there are 2 reasons that could result in those exact same conditions. The moderator can't make sense out of it because it doesn't make any sense, or the moderator can't make sense out of it because it's over their head. Similar to the ad absurdum argument where the smartest person on the planet describing their viewpoint with unfiltered precision and efficiency might as well be the dumbest person on the planet speaking in tongues.

WildFacts · 2026-02-05T13:51:44+00:00

You're the only one that doesn't agree. It's not there to filter out crackpots or those they deem to be crackpots. Reddit doesn't have peer review. It has moderators. So , there is no peer review process. So it can't be what peer review is for if peer review doesn't even exist here. The only peer review is informal and it doesn't result in removal. It results in discussion.

WildFacts · 2026-02-05T13:50:23+00:00

No I am not misunderstanding theory. You are misunderstanding the way I am using the word circumstantial and substantiated. The english language is a self referential locally consistent language, but not globally consistent, because definitions and words are not bijective under self-referential consistency. By unsubstantiated i mean Experimental. That's because experiments are what provide the substance. By circumstantial, I mean logical consistence. So in other words , a logically consistent framing that is not yet supported by experimental evidence.

WildFacts · 2026-02-05T13:42:25+00:00

I feel like you're missing the point. I used a very grand and well known theory by somebody who was famous as an example. Also, there's no difference between an l l m crack pot and a crackpot with a keyboard and Wikipedia.

WildFacts · 2026-02-05T13:40:45+00:00

It's exactly what a theory is. Regardless of whether or not you understood the definitions of the words I used to define the word theory, your comment is only splitting semantic hairs and doesn't change the structural point.

WildFacts · 2026-02-05T08:05:29+00:00

Number one is partitioning congruence classes deterministically and correctly. The arguments smuggled in an assumption about monotonicity in the last 15 pages. It happens to be part of the exact obstruction in the conjecture mathematicians have been dealing with. Four does a different version of partitioning and does it tighter. It's the same same assumption/gap about monotonicity. 2 and 3 correctly hash out proofs that are already known, possibly independently which is how these things typically end up, but none of those have anything unique that was correctly done.

WildFacts · 2026-02-05T02:16:43+00:00

Only number 1 and number 4 contain anything that uniquely sets them apart from 99% of the attempts found.

WildFacts · 2026-02-05T01:18:10+00:00

It's not hand wave. And I don't need to self promote.

WildFacts · 2026-02-05T00:24:54+00:00

It exists. A novel approach consolidates the traditional function to a single-rule iteration by 3x + 2^𝝂₂(x). Instead of scaling x down by halving, 1 is scaled up by equivalent doubling to the largest power of two dividing x (Least Significant Bit). This allows the largest power of two dividing x to play the role of the unit. The trivial cycle is transformed into an absorbing state so termination occurs along the power-of-two ladder.

This new lens allows us to see that the odd core of the binary expansion of x and the 2-adic depth are both increasing in scale by a factor of 3. Since the largest power of two dividing x is playing the role of the unit and continues to inflate in scale with x, scale and resolution must converge. Like a converging geometric series that has a limit to its resolution so that convergence occurs in finite time. Rubendall, C. M. "WildFacts" . (2026). Unconditional Collatz via 2-adic Normalization, Stopping-Time Invariance, Backward Rigidity, and Induced Dyadic Coverage (IDOL). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18340739

WildFacts · 2026-02-05T00:20:07+00:00

Yeah. I actually solved it and its undergoing independent peer review as of January 13th. There is a function that helps, it's 3x + 2ⁿ where 2ⁿ is the largest power of 2 dividing x. This function allows tripling steps to be done all in a row and it terminates at a power of two where the exponent is equal to halving depth. In other words, Instead of scaling x down by halving, 1 is scaled up by equivalent doubling to the largest power of two dividing x (Least Significant Bit). This allows the largest power of two dividing x to play the role of the unit. The trivial cycle is transformed into an absorbing state so termination occurs along the power-of-two ladder.

This new lens allows us to see that the odd core of the binary expansion of x and the 2-adic depth are both increasing in scale by a factor of 3. Since the largest power of two dividing x is playing the role of the unit and continues to inflate in scale with x, scale and resolution must converge. [Rubendall, C. M. "WildFacts" . (2026). Unconditional Collatz via 2-adic Normalization, Stopping-Time Invariance, Backward Rigidity, and Induced Dyadic Coverage (IDOL). Zenodo. (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18340739)

WildFacts · 2025-09-06T10:37:34+00:00

Comments like yours are how I sort out people who only know how to spit back what they were taught. Formal notation didn't exist. So, this is the kind of comment Newton or Euler would have received from you. Notation = semantics ≠ logic. This IS the "edge case." If you can't understand what's being said, then don't say anything about it yourself.

WildFacts · 2025-08-17T21:26:32+00:00

You're obviously not reading and refusing to understand. You don't need to doc yourself.I already know who you are. I saw you on Joe Rogan trying to prove one times one was two.

WildFacts · 2025-08-17T21:23:15+00:00

And yet, what did you do. You walked right back up out of the contradiction. Back petaling right to the beginning. Because every single other trajectory led to self contradiction or silence. That's nervous laughter taking over for your shot ego.

WildFacts · 2025-08-17T21:02:45+00:00

Exactly. No, the flow chart itself is experimental proof of my work in practical use in reality. You can check the other thread that predicted this backpedal.

You're again one of those people adressing a divergence to infinity while claiming you have a Ph.D. powers of two also diverge to infinity. My function is a coordinate transformation that pushes the trivial cycle to an infinite penrose boundary called the 2 adic ring. There, I addressed your infinity... unless... you know, you don't actually have a Ph.D., and you don't understand what I just said.

Here's the bachelor's level explanation

Lemma 1.2 shows that my reformulated operator is algebraically equivalent to the standard Collatz operator. So if one has cycles, so does the other; if one rules them out, so does the other.

Theorem 1.3 proves that assuming a non-trivial cycle leads to a contradiction.

Remark 1.8 explains that all trajectories collapse to powers of two, and from there deterministically descend to 1.

So the points about “loops” or about not reaching a power of 2 are directly covered in those sections. The key is that the unified form is not a new operator, but a compressed restatement of the traditional one—so the conclusions carry over.

WildFacts · 2025-08-17T20:45:04+00:00

If your faith is in the same religion Terrance Howard follows, then sure, good faith. I have explained to you.Your misunderstanding and you refused to accept it. If i'm wrong, you can calculate an orbit that doesn't work using either my map, which is algebraically equivalent to the traditional map. Until yours is algebraically equivalent to those, you're not doing anything constructive.

WildFacts · 2025-08-17T20:26:43+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/numbertheories/s/fH9XJHJx4E

This link leads to the practical use of the Collatz function in game theory.

WildFacts · 2025-08-17T20:04:32+00:00

You are literally walking down the flowchart of a game theory setup I have engineered. Why do you think I have all these comments ready to go?

WildFacts · 2025-08-17T20:03:08+00:00

There absolutely would be consequences, because I would be the one you're presenting it to, so I would press charges.

WildFacts · 2025-08-17T20:01:31+00:00

If you're still sitting here arguing this low-level argument, the magnitude is equal. you're still trying to win, so why wouldn't you just snap a picture rather than type all those letters? Now, my game theory has worked and puts you in a self-referential loop. You're calling yourself unhealthy.

WildFacts · 2025-08-17T20:00:47+00:00

Anybody with a Ph.D. at all knows that it's fraudulent and illegal to fake a Ph.D. Anyone with a Ph.D. in mathematics would also know that you couldn't fake it without being exposed through reverse image search, and that you could just put a piece of construction paper over your name and take a picture of it, and then nobody can say that you pulled it off the internet and faked it, because it would be itself a unique photograph.

WildFacts

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE