Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott2@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How do we know that ChatGPT 4.0 correctly evaluated my ideas?
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 09:38:24 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <uscn1g$141dm$3@dont-email.me>
References: <us096s$23k0u$2@dont-email.me> <us0ao0$fjqv$19@i2pn2.org>
 <us0b51$23tf5$1@dont-email.me> <us0hbq$fjqv$20@i2pn2.org>
 <us0ii7$25emo$1@dont-email.me> <us0jrl$fjqu$9@i2pn2.org>
 <us0ka2$25m8f$1@dont-email.me> <us0kp0$fjqu$12@i2pn2.org>
 <us0m4i$25m8f$4@dont-email.me> <us1kti$2f46h$1@dont-email.me>
 <us23p2$2i101$1@dont-email.me> <us2d4s$2k65l$1@dont-email.me>
 <us2gk1$2ksv3$2@dont-email.me> <us2n8c$lq4d$2@i2pn2.org>
 <us3ao5$2q7v4$1@dont-email.me> <us3bcg$lq4d$12@i2pn2.org>
 <us3fc1$2uo74$1@dont-email.me> <us3if9$lq4c$11@i2pn2.org>
 <us3j5o$2vhd5$1@dont-email.me> <us4eva$o3ci$2@i2pn2.org>
 <us5a3c$3b05o$1@dont-email.me> <us8rbk$unae$8@i2pn2.org>
 <us8uo4$7nqs$4@dont-email.me> <us94gf$v2sf$5@i2pn2.org>
 <us94v6$8gmr$4@dont-email.me> <us9bmg$a3hg$1@dont-email.me>
 <usa7ub$hc8a$1@dont-email.me> <usc9bj$119nr$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 15:38:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="991a76fa9aa76d17f8f6286f1a0a882d";
	logging-data="1181110"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+6rRqyDJErhwRRi+Mxx3Qx"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lWR3G6b+pXgtnusbSJ4YwcSBB54=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <usc9bj$119nr$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3537

On 3/7/2024 5:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-03-06 17:08:25 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 3/6/2024 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-06 07:11:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>>> Chat GPT CAN'T understand the words, it has no programming about 
>>>>> MEANING.
>>>>
>>>> You cant find any mistakes in any of its reasoning.
>>>>
>>>> *This paragraph precisely follows from its preceding dialogue*
>>>>
>>>> When an input, such as the halting problem's pathological input D, is
>>>> designed to contradict every value that the halting decider H returns,
>>>> it creates a self-referential paradox that prevents H from providing a
>>>> consistent and correct response. In this context, D can be seen as
>>>> posing an incorrect question to H, as its contradictory nature
>>>> undermines the possibility of a meaningful and accurate answer.
>>>
>>> That is essentially an agreement with Linz proof.
>> *It is not an agreement with the conclusion of this proof*
> 
> Not explicitly but comes close enough that the final step is
> trivial.
> 
>> It is an agreement with why Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer.
> 
> That, too.
> 
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt

The Linz proof correctly proves that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
can't possibly get the right answer and falsely
concludes that this means that H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot
get the correct answer.

*My H(D,D) and H1(D,D) prove otherwise*

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer