Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: ChatGPT correctly analyzed the first page of my paper: (typo corrected)
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 15:23:47 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <vdm2cj$3ns2j$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vdgpbs$2nmcm$1@dont-email.me> <vdgqhn$2nmcm$2@dont-email.me> <vdhaja$2qm1j$1@dont-email.me> <vdhhoc$2ma4$1@news.muc.de> <vdi0mh$2u1sn$1@dont-email.me> <vdj4hr$2k6$1@news.muc.de> <vdjlpc$38t86$3@dont-email.me> <vdk45j$3ah9l$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2024 14:23:47 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="aa2efb355dd975f9a7307d0a68944697";
	logging-data="3928147"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18FN+I6LxROc/9CQF7Ohb46"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DtIHgYADy/WKGmTTlld12RpcH/s=
Bytes: 3907

On 2024-10-02 18:41:54 +0000, olcott said:

> On 10/2/2024 9:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/2/2024 4:42 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/1/2024 2:15 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/1/2024 7:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> 
>>>>>> Simulating Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D
>>> 
>>>>> [ .... ]
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/66fbec5c-7b10-8011-9ce6-3c26424cb21c
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>>> The above link to a ChatGPT conversation is entirely
>>>>>> complete with the first part being the entire input
>>>>>> provided to ChatGPT. The second part is the output that
>>>>>> ChatGPT deriving from analyzing this input.
>>> 
>>>>> You are aware that programs like ChatGPT are know for "hallucinating"
>>>>> non-facts?  They have even less understanding of the truth than you do.
>>> 
>>>>> In fact, they tend to regurgitate whatever "facts" they are fed with.
>>> 
>>>> In other words you can convince it that its analysis
>>>> of my work is incorrect. I dare you to try to do that.
>>> 
>>> I've got better things to do with my time.  Real live competent
>>> mathematicians have shown your work to be incorrect.
>> 
>> 
>> Try this for yourself.
>> Real live computer scientists begin with the assumption that I
>> am incorrect and then try to justified that false assumption.
>> 
>> ChatGPT has not been indoctrinated thus reports on what it
>> sees.
>> 
>> https://chatgpt.com/share/66fbec5c-7b10-8011-9ce6-3c26424cb21c
>> 
>> Does HHH have to abort its emulation of DDD to prevent the infinite 
>> execution of DDD?
>> 
>> Several software engineers (two with master degrees in computer science)
>> Agree with the ChatGPT answer to the above question when they were asked
>> to independently derive this answer. Any C programmer that understands
>> infinite recursion has agreed.
>> 
>>> What a dumb chat
>>> program regurgitates has no relevance to anything.
>>> 
>> 
>> Unless what this dumb chat program says is irrefutably correct.
>> To show that it is [INCORRECT] one must find an actual mistake.
>> 
>> No one has ever done that. The most that they did is show that
>> things did not conform to their provably false assumptions.
>> 
> 
> int main() { DDD(); } does have a different execution
> trace than when it is emulated by the emulator that it
> calls: HHH(DDD).

The trace of DDD() is the same. If HHH(DDD) does only a partial
simulation of DDD() or partial tracing then some part of the
trace of DDD() are missing. The trace of main contains an initial
and final part that is not a part of the trace of DDD(). So the
traces are different but there is only one trace of DDD().

-- 
Mikko