Re: ChatGPT refutes the key rebuttal of my work

On 10/14/24 9:59 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/14/2024 6:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/14/24 12:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/14/2024 10:46 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 14 Oct 2024 10:38:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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

On 10/14/24 5:49 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/14/2024 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-13 12:53:12 +0000, olcott said:
>

Although it is possible for LLM systems to lie:
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*

No reasoning shown.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e
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.

No, it admits that DDD does halt, but that HHH must be correct to say
it doesn't, ... because of the lies you told it.

It proves that it has a much deeper understanding than anything that I
told it.

>

Its reasoning is based on the incorrect presumption that the HHH that
DDD calls is not part of the program DDD,

(1) DDD never has been a program it is a C function.
(2) HHH does correctly emulated itself emulating DDD
      this <is> a contiguous sequence of computation.

A program is a C function called from main(). This corresponds to the
behaviour of the actual execution.
>

>
I said that DDD never has never been a program and
you change the subject as your strawman deception rebuttal.

>
And thus you admit that you have been lying about working on the Halting problem.
>

 People have such deep emotional investment in the halting
problem that they will not talk about it rationally through
an accurate proxy.

Your projection is amazing. IT is YOU that has an EMOTIONAL investment in the problem, because you need for it not to be true to prove you life long idea that just isn't true.
Sorry, YOU are the one that lost rationality ages ago.

 THE FOLLOWING IS NECESSARILY TRUE YET EVERYONE CONCLUDES
THAT IT IS FALSE BECAUSE THEY ALREADY MADE UP THEIR MIND.

No, you are so invested in your lie that you refuse to see the truth.

 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer
then each DDD emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns.

Again, your equivocation.
The PROGRAM DDD, that is emulated by HHH, will return, That is the only entity in the sentece you use to have the property of "returning", and if HHH(DDD) return an answer, it WILL return.
The process of DDD being partially emulated by HHH, doesn't have a property of "never returns", because partial emulation don't have a property of never, since they don't complete the process, that can't assert things that we not seen.

 Each of the directly executed HHH emulator/analyzers that returns
0 correctly reports the above non-terminating behavior of its input.
 

Which just proves you are lying, as it has been proven wrong.
The fact that you just keep repeating your same argument, maybe just tweaking the words, but not the substance, shows that you understand you have no basis for your claims, and not logic to show the errors being pointed out are not errors.
Sorry, you are just at the end of your rope, and are now burying your reputation 6-feet under.