Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:59:37 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <vekia9$1hmv5$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vegfro$lk27$9@dont-email.me> <veimqs$14que$1@dont-email.me>
 <veipf3$15764$1@dont-email.me>
 <4f01f13c1e0c8773c52d4ec0aa398d01ca5f43f8@i2pn2.org>
 <vejdso$1879f$2@dont-email.me>
 <5bc45ae497492c41ebc451ff0dd9231ad0912f76@i2pn2.org>
 <vejfk0$1879f$4@dont-email.me>
 <585da8bf86595d20d8a0d796eb0ccff39c849fd7@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 03:59:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6ebbafc8de1d261770d7d4f83dd30cde";
	logging-data="1629157"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18qo/4yxYwNNM6ZLSs8daKY"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GerClnFbB79BE2GzWfNxZVSJoOY=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <585da8bf86595d20d8a0d796eb0ccff39c849fd7@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 3880

On 10/14/2024 6:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/14/24 12:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2024 10:46 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Mon, 14 Oct 2024 10:38:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 10/14/2024 6:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/24 5:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/14/2024 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-10-13 12:53:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Although it is possible for LLM systems to lie:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> No, it admits that DDD does halt, but that HHH must be correct to say
>>>>> it doesn't, ... because of the lies you told it.
>>>> It proves that it has a much deeper understanding than anything that I
>>>> told it.
>>>
>>>>> Its reasoning is based on the incorrect presumption that the HHH that
>>>>> DDD calls is not part of the program DDD,
>>>> (1) DDD never has been a program it is a C function.
>>>> (2) HHH does correctly emulated itself emulating DDD
>>>>       this <is> a contiguous sequence of computation.
>>> A program is a C function called from main(). This corresponds to the
>>> behaviour of the actual execution.
>>>
>>
>> I said that DDD never has never been a program and
>> you change the subject as your strawman deception rebuttal.
> 
> And thus you admit that you have been lying about working on the Halting 
> problem.
> 

People have such deep emotional investment in the halting
problem that they will not talk about it rationally through
an accurate proxy.

THE FOLLOWING IS NECESSARILY TRUE YET EVERYONE CONCLUDES
THAT IT IS FALSE BECAUSE THEY ALREADY MADE UP THEIR MIND.

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer
then each DDD emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns.

Each of the directly executed HHH emulator/analyzers that returns
0 correctly reports the above non-terminating behavior of its input.



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