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: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 19:49:17 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <69ea9ac4d5f72fd7596a86d949203b4549a8766e@i2pn2.org>
References: <vegfro$lk27$9@dont-email.me>
 <b1d66ff0f5b7a9b18506850295a77fb3cdbc9b5a@i2pn2.org>
 <veghtn$lk27$14@dont-email.me>
 <24d92039f9728a52f6fe4566124d7b042f29f457@i2pn2.org>
 <veh72n$orit$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 23:49:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1921093"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <veh72n$orit$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4291
Lines: 96

On 10/13/24 3:29 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/13/2024 1:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/13/24 9:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2024 8:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/24 8:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> Although it is possible for LLM systems to lie:
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination_(artificial_intelligence)
>>>>>
>>>>> 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*
>>>>>
>>>>> *The key premises are simply*
>>>>> (a) the source code for DDD
>>>>
>>>> WHich isn't the source code for the PROGRAM DDD
>>>>
>>>> Try to run that program just by itself.
>>>>
>>>> It won't work, you need to include HHH (and everything it calls) so 
>>>> that the "source code" for DDD needs to include the definition of 
>>>> all of that.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, you are just proving you don't understand what you are 
>>>> talking about.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> (b) The design of HHH as a simulating termination analyzer.
>>>>
>>>> Which gets the wrong answer.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e
>>>>> Click on the above link to directly talk to ChatGPT about HHH
>>>>> and DDD without logging in.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have taught Chat GPT this error as shown in this statement:
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have only provided the source-code for DDD and the design of HHH.
>>> You have not shown how any details of exactly what I told ChatGPT
>>> are incorrect.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You mean like this statement:
>>
>> The termination analyzer HHH is designed to detect non-terminating 
>> behavior. When HHH simulates DDD and sees this pattern of infinite 
>> recursive calls, it identifies that DDD will not terminate on its own.
>>
> 
> I didn't say that. ChatGPT said that.
> ChatGPT used the first page starting with "You said:"
> as its entire basis.
> 
> *Everything that I said is indented two inches*
> Everything that ChatGPT said is prefaced by its logo symbol.

So when you said:

Every C programmer that knows that when HHH emulates the machine 
language of, Infinite_Recursion it must abort this emulation so that 
itself can terminate normally.

When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating 
termination analyzer HHH is correct to reject this input as non-halting 
by returning 0 to its caller.

We get the same repetitive pattern when DDD is correctly emulated by 
HHH. HHH emulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD) to do this again.


You LIED, as that is NOT the non-halting critera, and we do not get the 
"same pattern"

I guess you don't understand the meaning of the words.


Arguements based on false premises are invalid.

> 
> Everything else that I said besides the first page
> was merely a challenge to ChatGPT's understanding.
>