Re: ChatGPT refutes the key concepts of my work --- [ Olcott has less than no rebuttal at all ]

On 10/15/24 9:11 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/15/2024 6:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

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

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

On 10/14/24 11:18 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/14/2024 7:06 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:49:22 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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.

It is nonsensical for HHH not to report that DDD terminates.
>

The explanation is quite good. I will take what you said
to mean that it was over your head or didn't bother to
look at it.
>
You never confirmed that you even know what infinite
recursion is.
>

>
No, he means your argument is just non-sense, and it is just a blantant lie that you put forwards because you just don't understand what you are talking about.,

>
In other words you coward away from trying to convince
ChatGPT that is is incorrect.

>
What do you mean. With one statement I got it to admit that the ACTUAL behavior of DDD was to halt.
>

>
Since you say that it is a YES man it should be easy
for you to get it to admit that it is wrong.
>

>
Which I did,
>

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.
>

>
I did that, and it admitted that DDD halts, it just tries to justify why a wrong answer must be right.
>

 It explains in great detail that another different DDD
(same machine code different process context) seems to
terminate only because the recursive emulation that it
specifies has been aborted at its second recursive call.

No, DDD terminates, because when it is run, the copy of HHH that it calls, and is IN ITS PROCESS will also decide to abort its emulation of ANOTHER PROCESS of DDD (ad thus not affecting the behavior of this one) and return to DDD and thus DDD halts.

 You err because you fail to understand how the same
C/x86 function invoked in a different process context
can have different behavior.

So, what instruction actted differently between the two process contexts?
This has been asked to you before, and you inablility to answer just proves that you understand this to be a lie.

 A rebuttal anchored in failing to understand a key detail
is less than no rebuttal at all.
 

Right, the fact that you continue to assert a proven fact, that deterministic code applie to the same input, will ALWAY produce the same result, just shows that your response is no rebuttal at all.
Sorry, you are just continuing to prove that you are nothing but an ignorant liar.