Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko 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: References: 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 wrote: >>>> On 10/1/2024 2:15 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> olcott 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