Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: What I told ChatGPT is essentially identical to the first page of my paper Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 18:08:23 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 130 Message-ID: References: <6fa1774ec1e4b13035be3eab85555b609b301d69@i2pn2.org> <3570d58cf5fea3a0a8ac8724b653d1596447d0d1@i2pn2.org> <3db3ceb1eac447b89c8c740dbba31774eeb1ad99@i2pn2.org> <9a91d75b6beb959665d2a042677ef61f444608a5@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 01:08:24 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0250fa4f333a237bb4a9bec06e6bd0e6"; logging-data="1153642"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19UTgSox5Dd1zBiM0r8nSPn" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:cXLvwAxPnJLJqzW+p4by0ucJmNg= In-Reply-To: <9a91d75b6beb959665d2a042677ef61f444608a5@i2pn2.org> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241021-4, 10/21/2024), Outbound message Bytes: 6917 On 10/21/2024 6:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/21/24 6:48 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/21/2024 5:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/21/24 12:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/21/2024 10:17 AM, joes wrote: >>>>> Am Mon, 21 Oct 2024 08:41:11 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>> On 10/21/2024 3:39 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>> Am Sun, 20 Oct 2024 17:36:25 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>> On 10/20/2024 4:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/20/24 4:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2024 2:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/24 1:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Note, I DID tell that to Chat GPT, and it agrees that DDD, when >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> criteria is what does DDD actually do, which is what the question >>>>>>>>> MUST be about to be about the Termination or Halting problem, then >>>>>>>>> DDD WILL HALT since HHH(DDD) will return 0 to it. >>>>>>>> No one ever bother to notice that (a) A decider cannot have its >>>>>>>> actual >>>>>>>> self as its input. >>>>>>> lolwut? A decider is a normal program, and it should be handled like >>>>>>> every other input. >>>>> >>>>>>>> (b) In the case of the pathological input DDD to emulating >>>>>>>> termination >>>>>>>> analyzer HHH the behavior of the directly executed DDD (not an >>>>>>>> input >>>>>>>> to HHH) is different than the behavior of DDD that is an input >>>>>>>> to HHH. >>>>>>> DDD *is* the input to HHH. >>>>> >>>>>>>> The executed DDD calls HHH() and this call returns. The emulated >>>>>>>> DDD >>>>>>>> calls HHH(DDD) and this call cannot possibly return. >>>>>>> But whyyy doesn't HHH abort? >>>>>> You can click on the link and cut-and-paste the question to see the >>>>>> whole answer in compete detail. >>>>> I am not interested in arguing with a chatbot. Make the points >>>>> yourself. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1. **Nature of `DDD()`**: >>>>>     - `DDD()` simply calls `HHH(DDD)`. It does not perform any >>>>> additional >>>>> operations that could create a loop or prevent it from returning. >>>>>     - If `HHH` returns (whether by aborting or completing its >>>>> simulation), >>>>> `DDD()` can return to its caller. >>>>> >>>>> 2. **Behavior of `HHH`**: >>>>>     - If `HHH` is able to simulate `DDD()` and return, it should >>>>> report >>>>> that `DDD()` terminates. If `HHH` aborts due to detecting non- >>>>> termination, >>>>> it does not reflect the actual execution of `DDD()`; it leads to a >>>>> conclusion that may not align with the true behavior. >>>>> >>>>> 3. **Contradiction in Results**: >>>>>     - If `HHH` claims that `DDD()` does not halt, but in reality, >>>>> `DDD()` >>>>> can terminate once `HHH` returns, then `HHH` is providing an incorrect >>>>> analysis. >>>>>     - The contradiction lies in the ability of `HHH` to detect non- >>>>> termination theoretically while simultaneously allowing `DDD()` to >>>>> halt in >>>>> practical execution. >>>>> >>>>> ### Conclusion: >>>>> Given the nature of `DDD()` and how `HHH` operates, it becomes >>>>> clear that >>>>> `HHH` cannot consistently provide a correct answer about whether >>>>> `DDD()` >>>>> halts. The dynamics of calling and returning create a scenario >>>>> where the >>>>> outcomes conflict. Thus, `HHH` is fundamentally flawed in its role >>>>> as a >>>>> termination analyzer for functions like `DDD()`. >>>> >>>> Did ChatGPT generate that? >>>> If it did then I need *ALL the input that caused it to generate that* >>>> >>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e >>>> If you did not start with the basis of this link then you cheated. >>>> >>> No, someone using some REAL INTELEGENCE, as opposed to a program >>> using "artificial intelegence" that had been loaded with false >>> premises and other lies. >>> >>> Sorry, you are just showing that you have NO intelegence, and are >>> depending on a program that includes a disclaimed on every page that >>> its answers may have mistakes. >> >> I specifically asked it to verify that its key >> assumption is correct and it did. > > No, it said that given what you told it (which was a lie) I asked it if what it was told was a lie and it explained how what it was told is correct. Instead of me having to repeat the same thing to you fifty times why don't you do what I do to focus my own concentration read what I say many times over and over until you at least see what I said. > the results > were correct. Arguememnts, even if valid, that are based on incorrect > premises don't prove anything. > >> >> Could it be correct for HHH(DDD) to report on the behavior >> of the directly executed DDD()? >> >> https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2 >> > > Which is only correct if your misdefine what that that means. > > Sorry, getting an AI to beleive your lies does NOT prove your statements > are correct, only that you just totally don't understand how logic works. > > You are showing that you are nothing but an ignorant patholgical lying > idiot. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer