Re: ChatGPT refutes the key rebuttal of my work

On 10/13/24 8:18 PM, olcott wrote:

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?

If your criteria is that is can't completely emulate its input, NO.
But, "When ..." doesn't introduce a statement of fact, but a statement of supposition.
When that statement introduces a condition that violates the definitions of the system, that statement is just invalid. It isn't just false because it is incorrect, but its attempt to change the definition in the system is voided, and the criteria doesn't change.
IF you call your dog a person, how many legs does it have?
Still 4, becuase it is still a dog (unless it is a amputee). Trying to change a definition doesn't actually change the thing,

 It provided several paragraphs of correct reasoning that
explains how and why: HHH DOES have correct non-halting criteria.
 

But it doesn't, as the ONLY correct criteria are criteria that match the definition, which is does the actaul machine represented by the unput halt when run.
First, we have the problem that you input doesn't actually specify a full program, as it leaves behavior undefined, since it doesn't include the code for HHH, and you have demonstrated that the behavior of routines HHH that obey your definition differ (as some abort and return and some do not) so you begin with an invalid prblem statement, as it doesn't meet its own requirements.
Second, Your premise tries to change a definition, which can not be changed in the system, so it doesn't, and thus you logic is invalid.
Now, you can get around the second by clearly declaring that you are LEAVING the domain of Computability Theory, but you don't want to do that, as once your argument leaves, it can't get back to claim to have refuted a proof in the Theory.
Note, when I prompted Char GPT, it quickly admits that DDD does Halt, but justifies itself based on your lies, lies that I have pointed out.
So, all you have done is teach the AI how to LIE and then JUSTIFY itself with invalid arguments.
Sorry, you are just showing that you are a failure.

Are you afraid to try this yourself?