Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.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 07:22:38 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <57a22277e0e3d70a5db42656a7c788821476fda2@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; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 11:22:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3171337"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vf74oh$1a8oo$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8881
Lines: 184

On 10/21/24 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Because Chat GPT doesn't care about lying.
>>
> 
> ChatGPT computes the truth and you can't actually
> show otherwise.

Of course it doesn't, that is why it has the disclaimer at the bottom of 
the page that it can make mistakes.

> 
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
> 

But that doesn't prove anything.

>> 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.
>>
> 
> You are merely spouting off what you have been indoctrinated
> to believe and cannot provide any actual basis in reasoning
> why I am incorrect.

No, I *HAVE* provided the reason, but you have brainwashed yourself

> 
>> But you can't do that, as you don't actually know any facts about the 
>> field that you can point to qualified references.
>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========