Re: ChatGPT refutes the key rebuttal of my work

On 10/14/24 12:13 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/14/2024 6:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
>

 I did not ask it about myself I asked it about HHH.
You can't even pay attention to simple things.

And give it false facts about the criteria.

 I have a hard time paying attention too.
I fix this by reading and rereading the words
over and over and over until I am sure that
I got the meaning exactly correctly.

Nope,  because you read through the lens of your ignorant brainwashing.

 When I was in charge of a bank's credit card dispute
management system I had to read the VISA card change
document fifteen times. The Discover card change
document was much easier than this.
 

Weird to BRAG about having trouble understanding doecuments. Agreed that some might need to be gone over two or three times, but fifteen times seems to indicate that you just were missing some of the basic knowledge that the document used.
Sorry, your bragging about your inability to understand things does not help your position, when your problem is that you clearly don't undetstand what you are talking about.