Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: ChatGPT correctly analyzed the first page of my paper: (typo corrected) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 13:41:54 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 81 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2024 20:41:55 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ddfbe8e236b96e9eb22acbe29860ad61"; logging-data="3491125"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/k86EH8cdMvVQFxeCmdLI9" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:g3WgpCUdElEl5mqzau2pPLeqV34= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4026 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). Pretending that the self-referential relationship between HHH and DDD DOES NOT EXIST is merely dishonesty. >> [ .... ] >> >>> -- >>> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius >>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer >> > > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer