Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<8f12bccec21234ec3802cdb3df63fd9566ba9b07@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes <noreply@example.org> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: ChatGPT refutes the key rebuttal of my work Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:17:01 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <8f12bccec21234ec3802cdb3df63fd9566ba9b07@i2pn2.org> References: <vegfro$lk27$9@dont-email.me> <veimqs$14que$1@dont-email.me> <veipf3$15764$1@dont-email.me> <36ecdefcca730806c7bd9ec03e326fac1a9c8464@i2pn2.org> <vejcoj$1879f$1@dont-email.me> <034767682966b9ac642993dd2fa0d181c21dfffc@i2pn2.org> <vekj4q$1hrgd$1@dont-email.me> <f8a15594bf0623a229214e2fb62ce4f4a2bd7116@i2pn2.org> <velpm2$1n3gb$6@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:17:01 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2155708"; 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: 3996 Lines: 55 Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:11:30 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 10/15/2024 6:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 10/14/24 10:13 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/14/2024 6:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 10/14/24 11:18 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/14/2024 7:06 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:49:22 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 10/14/2024 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-10-13 12:53:12 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> It is nonsensical for HHH not to report that DDD terminates. >>>>> The explanation is quite good. I will take what you said to mean >>>>> that it was over your head or didn't bother to look at it. >>>>> You never confirmed that you even know what infinite recursion is. >>>> No, he means your argument is just non-sense, and it is just a >>>> blantant lie that you put forwards because you just don't understand >>>> what you are talking about., >>> In other words you coward away from trying to convince ChatGPT that is >>> is incorrect. >> What do you mean. With one statement I got it to admit that the ACTUAL >> behavior of DDD was to halt. >> >> >>> Since you say that it is a YES man it should be easy for you to get it >>> to admit that it is wrong. >> Which I did, >> >>> 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. >> I did that, and it admitted that DDD halts, it just tries to justify >> why a wrong answer must be right. > It explains in great detail that another different DDD (same machine > code different process context) seems to terminate only because the > recursive emulation that it specifies has been aborted at its second > recursive call. Yes! It really has different code, by way of the static Root variable. No wonder it behaves differently. > You err because you fail to understand how the same C/x86 function > invoked in a different process context can have different behavior. Do explain how a pure function can change. -- 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.