Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How do we know that ChatGPT 4.0 correctly evaluated my ideas?
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 09:38:24 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 44
Message-ID:
References:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 15:38:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="991a76fa9aa76d17f8f6286f1a0a882d";
logging-data="1181110"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+6rRqyDJErhwRRi+Mxx3Qx"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lWR3G6b+pXgtnusbSJ4YwcSBB54=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To:
Bytes: 3537
On 3/7/2024 5:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-03-06 17:08:25 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 3/6/2024 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-06 07:11:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>>> Chat GPT CAN'T understand the words, it has no programming about
>>>>> MEANING.
>>>>
>>>> You cant find any mistakes in any of its reasoning.
>>>>
>>>> *This paragraph precisely follows from its preceding dialogue*
>>>>
>>>> When an input, such as the halting problem's pathological input D, is
>>>> designed to contradict every value that the halting decider H returns,
>>>> it creates a self-referential paradox that prevents H from providing a
>>>> consistent and correct response. In this context, D can be seen as
>>>> posing an incorrect question to H, as its contradictory nature
>>>> undermines the possibility of a meaningful and accurate answer.
>>>
>>> That is essentially an agreement with Linz proof.
>> *It is not an agreement with the conclusion of this proof*
>
> Not explicitly but comes close enough that the final step is
> trivial.
>
>> It is an agreement with why Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer.
>
> That, too.
>
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
The Linz proof correctly proves that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
can't possibly get the right answer and falsely
concludes that this means that H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot
get the correct answer.
*My H(D,D) and H1(D,D) prove otherwise*
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer