Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Premises cannot be shown to be false without proving that they
 contradict each other
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 09:50:57 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <525ed75662589a150afa1ea268b199a166a7b98b@i2pn2.org>
References: <vf3eu5$fbb3$2@dont-email.me>
	<6fa1774ec1e4b13035be3eab85555b609b301d69@i2pn2.org>
	<vf3os0$hqgf$1@dont-email.me>
	<de0c3b304ab574b45594ec05085c193fd687f9f7@i2pn2.org>
	<vf40l9$ja0c$3@dont-email.me>
	<3570d58cf5fea3a0a8ac8724b653d1596447d0d1@i2pn2.org>
	<vf5lln$v6n5$2@dont-email.me>
	<a9302e42f51777b34f4a7c695247ea98f0f060ad@i2pn2.org>
	<vf5vi4$10jkk$1@dont-email.me>
	<3db3ceb1eac447b89c8c740dbba31774eeb1ad99@i2pn2.org>
	<vf6loq$136ja$1@dont-email.me>
	<9a91d75b6beb959665d2a042677ef61f444608a5@i2pn2.org>
	<vf6mt7$136ja$2@dont-email.me>
	<ad43f56a12181e10f59b8a1e6220ed7989b6c973@i2pn2.org>
	<vf74oh$1a8oo$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 09:50:57 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3158786"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6719
Lines: 107

Am Mon, 21 Oct 2024 22:04:49 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 10/21/2024 9:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/21/24 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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:

>>>>>>>>>>> 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*
It's not like it will deterministically regenerate the same output.

>>>>>> No, someone using some REAL INTELEGENCE, as opposed to a program
>>>>>> using "artificial intelegence" that had been loaded with false
>>>>>> premises and other lies.
>>>>> 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.
"naw, I wasn't lied to, they said they were saying the truth" sure buddy.

>> Because Chat GPT doesn't care about lying.
> ChatGPT computes the truth and you can't actually show otherwise.
HAHAHAHAHA there isn't anything about truth in there, prove me wrong

>> Because what you are asking for is nonsense.
>> Of course an AI that has been programmed with lies might repeat the
>> lies.
>> When it is told the actual definition, after being told your lies, and
>> asked if your conclusion could be right, it said No.
>> Thus, it seems by your logic, you have to admit defeat, as the AI,
>> after being told your lies, still was able to come up with the correct
>> answer, that DDD will halt, and that HHH is just incorrect to say it
>> doesn't.
> I believe that the "output" Joes provided was fake on the basis that she
> did not provide the input to derive that output and did not use the
> required basis that was on the link.
I definitely typed something out in the style of an LLM instead of
my own words /s

>> If you want me to pay more attention to what you say, you first need to
>> return the favor, and at least TRY to find an error in what I say, and
>> be based on more than just that you think that can't be right.

>> But you can't do that, as you don't actually know any facts about the
>> field that you can point to qualified references.
> You cannot show that my premises are actually false.
> To show that they are false would at least require showing that they
> contradict each other.
Accepting your premises makes the problem uninteresting.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.