Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott 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: References: <24d92039f9728a52f6fe4566124d7b042f29f457@i2pn2.org> <69ea9ac4d5f72fd7596a86d949203b4549a8766e@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: 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