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

Am Tue, 22 Oct 2024 08:47:39 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/22/2024 4:50 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 21 Oct 2024 22:04:49 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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:

Did ChatGPT generate that?
If it did then I need *ALL the input that caused it to generate
that*

It's not like it will deterministically regenerate the same output.

No, someone using some REAL INTELEGENCE, as opposed to a program
using "artificial intelegence" that had been loaded with false
premises and other lies.

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.

"naw, I wasn't lied to, they said they were saying the truth" sure
buddy.
 

Because Chat GPT doesn't care about lying.

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

HAHAHAHAHA there isn't anything about truth in there, prove me wrong

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.

I definitely typed something out in the style of an LLM instead of my
own words /s
 

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

Accepting your premises makes the problem uninteresting.

That seems to indicate that you are admitting that you cheated when you
discussed this with ChatGPT. You gave it a faulty basis and then argued
against that.

Just no. Do you believe that I didn't write this myself after all?

They also conventional within the context of software engineering. That
software engineering conventions seem incompatible with computer science
conventions may refute the latter.

lol

The a halt decider must report on the behavior that itself is contained
within seems to be an incorrect convention.

Just because you don't like the undecidability of the halting problem?

u32 HHH1(ptr P)  // line 721
u32 HHH(ptr P)   // line 801
The above two functions have identical C code except for their name.
 
The input to HHH1(DDD) halts. The input to HHH(DDD) does not halt. This
conclusively proves that the pathological relationship between DDD and
HHH makes a difference in the behavior of DDD.

That makes no sense. DDD halts or doesn't either way. HHH and HHH1 may
give different answers, but then exactly one of them must be wrong.
Do they both call HHH? How does their execution differ?

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.