Re: Premises cannot be shown to be false without proving that they contradict each other

On 10/22/2024 6:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/21/24 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/21/2024 9:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/21/24 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/21/2024 6:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/21/24 6:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/21/2024 5:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/21/24 12:29 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/21/2024 10:17 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 21 Oct 2024 08:41:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/21/2024 3:39 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 20 Oct 2024 17:36:25 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/20/2024 4:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/20/24 4:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/20/2024 2:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/20/24 1:33 PM, olcott wrote:

>

Note, I DID tell that to Chat GPT, and it agrees that DDD, when the
criteria is what does DDD actually do, which is what the question
MUST be about to be about the Termination or Halting problem, then
DDD WILL HALT since HHH(DDD) will return 0 to it.

No one ever bother to notice that (a) A decider cannot have its actual
self as its input.

lolwut? A decider is a normal program, and it should be handled like
every other input.

>

(b) In the case of the pathological input DDD to emulating termination
analyzer HHH the behavior of the directly executed DDD (not an input
to HHH) is different than the behavior of DDD that is an input to HHH.

DDD *is* the input to HHH.

>

The executed DDD calls HHH() and this call returns. The emulated DDD
calls HHH(DDD) and this call cannot possibly return.

But whyyy doesn't HHH abort?

You can click on the link and cut-and-paste the question to see the
whole answer in compete detail.

I am not interested in arguing with a chatbot. Make the points yourself.
>
>
1. **Nature of `DDD()`**:
    - `DDD()` simply calls `HHH(DDD)`. It does not perform any additional
operations that could create a loop or prevent it from returning.
    - If `HHH` returns (whether by aborting or completing its simulation),
`DDD()` can return to its caller.
>
2. **Behavior of `HHH`**:
    - If `HHH` is able to simulate `DDD()` and return, it should report
that `DDD()` terminates. If `HHH` aborts due to detecting non- termination,
it does not reflect the actual execution of `DDD()`; it leads to a
conclusion that may not align with the true behavior.
>
3. **Contradiction in Results**:
    - If `HHH` claims that `DDD()` does not halt, but in reality, `DDD()`
can terminate once `HHH` returns, then `HHH` is providing an incorrect
analysis.
    - The contradiction lies in the ability of `HHH` to detect non-
termination theoretically while simultaneously allowing `DDD()` to halt in
practical execution.
>
### Conclusion:
Given the nature of `DDD()` and how `HHH` operates, it becomes clear that
`HHH` cannot consistently provide a correct answer about whether `DDD()`
halts. The dynamics of calling and returning create a scenario where the
outcomes conflict. Thus, `HHH` is fundamentally flawed in its role as a
termination analyzer for functions like `DDD()`.

>
Did ChatGPT generate that?
If it did then I need *ALL the input that caused it to generate that*
>
https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e
If you did not start with the basis of this link then you cheated.
>

No, someone using some REAL INTELEGENCE, as opposed to a program using "artificial intelegence" that had been loaded with false premises and other lies.
>
Sorry, you are just showing that you have NO intelegence, and are depending on a program that includes a disclaimed on every page that its answers may have mistakes.

>
I specifically asked it to verify that its key
assumption is correct and it did.

>
No, it said that given what you told it (which was a lie)

>
I asked it if what it was told was a lie and it
explained how what it was told is correct.

>
Because Chat GPT doesn't care about lying.
>

>
ChatGPT computes the truth and you can't actually
show otherwise.

 Of course it doesn't, that is why it has the disclaimer at the bottom of the page that it can make mistakes.
 

Yet again you do not pay COMPLETE ATTENTION !!!
I claim X and you refute an incorrect paraphrase of X.
ChatGPT can and does make mistakes.
ChatGPT made no mistakes in analyzing my work and you
can't show otherwise with any actual reasoning.
The most that you can possibly show (and I don't think that
you can show this) is that my premises are unconventional.

>

>
Instead of me having to repeat the same thing to
you fifty times why don't you do what I do to
focus my own concentration read what I say many
times over and over until you at least see what
I said.

>
Because what you are asking for is nonsense.
>
Of course an AI that has been programmed with lies might repeat the lies.
>
When it is told the actual definition, after being told your lies, and asked if your conclusion could be right, it said No.
>
Thus, it seems by your logic, you have to admit defeat, as the AI, after being told your lies, still was able to come up with the correct answer, that DDD will halt, and that HHH is just incorrect to say it doesn't.
>

>
I believe that the "output" Joes provided was fake on the
basis that she did not provide the input to derive that
output and did not use the required basis that was on the
link.
>

 But that doesn't prove anything.
 

Correct we toss out Joes rebuttal because it doen't
prove anything.

If you want me to pay more attention to what you say, you first need to return the favor, and at least TRY to find an error in what I say, and be based on more than just that you think that can't be right.
>

>
You are merely spouting off what you have been indoctrinated
to believe and cannot provide any actual basis in reasoning
why I am incorrect.

 No, I *HAVE* provided the reason, but you have brainwashed yourself
 

All that you have is the dogma of the received view.
The most that you can say is that the software engineering
that I propose seems inconsistent with the received view
in computer science.
You cannot show that it is actually false. You can only
show that my assumptions are incompatible with yours.

>

But you can't do that, as you don't actually know any facts about the field that you can point to qualified references.
>

>
You cannot show that my premises are actually false. The
most that you can do is show that they are unconventional.

 Of course I have, they presume definitions in conflict with the Formal System you claim to be working in.
 

Not at all. My definitions specify the formal system
that I am working in and you cannot show that these
definitions are false.
The most that you can show is that they are unconventional.
I don't think that you can even do that. Within software
engineering my definitions are conventional.

>
To show that they are false would at least require showing
that they contradict each other.

 No, just that they contradict statements already established in the system you claim to be working in.
 

Not at all.
*X correctly_emulated_by Y*
Is defined to mean one or more x86 instructions of X are
emulated by Y according to the semantics of the x86 language.
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer
then each DDD *correctly_emulated_by* any HHH that this DDD
calls cannot possibly return no matter what this HHH does.
The above is conventional software engineering.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer