Re: How do we know that ChatGPT 4.0 correctly evaluated my ideas?

On 7/03/24 16:38, olcott wrote:

On 3/7/2024 5:44 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-03-06 17:08:25 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 3/6/2024 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-03-06 07:11:34 +0000, olcott said:
>

Chat GPT CAN'T understand the words, it has no programming about MEANING.

>
You cant find any mistakes in any of its reasoning.
>
*This paragraph precisely follows from its preceding dialogue*
>
When an input, such as the halting problem's pathological input D, is
designed to contradict every value that the halting decider H returns,
it creates a self-referential paradox that prevents H from providing a
consistent and correct response. In this context, D can be seen as
posing an incorrect question to H, as its contradictory nature
undermines the possibility of a meaningful and accurate answer.

>
That is essentially an agreement with Linz proof.

*It is not an agreement with the conclusion of this proof*

>
Not explicitly but comes close enough that the final step is
trivial.
>

It is an agreement with why Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer.

>
That, too.
>

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>
The Linz proof correctly proves that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
can't possibly get the right answer and falsely
concludes that this means that H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot
get the correct answer.
>
*My H(D,D) and H1(D,D) prove otherwise*
>

 An embedded copy of a machine is stipulated to always get the same result as the original machine.