Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: ChatGPT refutes the key rebuttal of my work
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 19:18:28 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 121
Message-ID: <veho0k$sfi5$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vegfro$lk27$9@dont-email.me>
 <b1d66ff0f5b7a9b18506850295a77fb3cdbc9b5a@i2pn2.org>
 <veghtn$lk27$14@dont-email.me>
 <24d92039f9728a52f6fe4566124d7b042f29f457@i2pn2.org>
 <veh72n$orit$3@dont-email.me>
 <69ea9ac4d5f72fd7596a86d949203b4549a8766e@i2pn2.org>
 <vehn04$sfi5$1@dont-email.me>
 <fb206f5da6fde63c5663eb52711df964705667e2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 02:18:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f8f20fff893307cbfb842dac28fd5b36";
	logging-data="933445"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/U6h0u7+aWS25d77sj4rAT"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WW3hBA5XIGiv+Tc3xG/kpqPV8OA=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <fb206f5da6fde63c5663eb52711df964705667e2@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5572

On 10/13/2024 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/13/24 8:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/13/2024 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> I just asked it this:
>> Does HHH have correct non-halting criteria?
>>
>> It explained all of the details of how you are wrong.
>> Try it yourself.
>>
> No, you said that WAS the correct non-halting criteria.
> 
> You said "When this is construed as non-halting criteria"
> 
> That is a statement of fact, affirming that statement.
> 

*When I asked it to evaluate*
Does HHH have correct non-halting criteria?

It provided several paragraphs of correct reasoning that
explains how and why: HHH DOES have correct non-halting criteria.

Are you afraid to try this yourself?

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