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: ChatGPT refutes the key rebuttal of my work
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 19:50:25 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <585da8bf86595d20d8a0d796eb0ccff39c849fd7@i2pn2.org>
References: <vegfro$lk27$9@dont-email.me> <veimqs$14que$1@dont-email.me>
 <veipf3$15764$1@dont-email.me>
 <4f01f13c1e0c8773c52d4ec0aa398d01ca5f43f8@i2pn2.org>
 <vejdso$1879f$2@dont-email.me>
 <5bc45ae497492c41ebc451ff0dd9231ad0912f76@i2pn2.org>
 <vejfk0$1879f$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 23:50:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2070119"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vejfk0$1879f$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3481
Lines: 51

On 10/14/24 12:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2024 10:46 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Mon, 14 Oct 2024 10:38:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 10/14/2024 6:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/24 5:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2024 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-10-13 12:53:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Although it is possible for LLM systems to lie:
>>>>>>> ChatGPT does correctly apply truth preserving operations to the
>>>>>>> premises that it was provided regarding the behavior of DDD and HHH.
>>>>>>> *Try to find a mistake in its reasoning*
>>>>>> No reasoning shown.
>>>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e
>>>>> When you click on the link and try to explain how HHH must be wrong
>>>>> when it reports that DDD does not terminate because DDD does terminate
>>>>> it will explain your mistake to you.
>>>> No, it admits that DDD does halt, but that HHH must be correct to say
>>>> it doesn't, ... because of the lies you told it.
>>> It proves that it has a much deeper understanding than anything that I
>>> told it.
>>
>>>> Its reasoning is based on the incorrect presumption that the HHH that
>>>> DDD calls is not part of the program DDD,
>>> (1) DDD never has been a program it is a C function.
>>> (2) HHH does correctly emulated itself emulating DDD
>>>       this <is> a contiguous sequence of computation.
>> A program is a C function called from main(). This corresponds to the
>> behaviour of the actual execution.
>>
> 
> I said that DDD never has never been a program and
> you change the subject as your strawman deception rebuttal.

And thus you admit that you have been lying about working on the Halting 
problem.

Your ship is sunk, and gone forever, you just admitted that you are 
nothing but a stupid liar that never knew what he was talking about, 
even when people did there best to teach you.

> 
>>>> because you have broken the definition of a program.
>>> I am not the one saying that a C function <is> a program.
>>> You should not be so sloppy in your use of terminology.
>>> DDD emulated by HHH including HHH emulating itself emulating DDD is a
>>> contiguous sequence of computation.
>>> It is not and never has been a program. I think of DDD and HHH as
>>> virtual machines.
> 
>