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