Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.ai.philosophy > #29738
| Subject | Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic, comp.ai.philosophy |
| References | (9 earlier) <u6lsjq$1id16$1@dont-email.me> <knCjM.62$_%y4.58@fx48.iad> <u6n4ho$1m6pt$1@dont-email.me> <PjGjM.29243$8uge.16102@fx14.iad> <u6nc3t$1mvav$1@dont-email.me> |
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
| Message-ID | <5FGjM.3718$a0G8.2055@fx34.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Date | 2023-06-18 12:54 -0400 |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 6/18/23 12:41 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/18/2023 11:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/18/23 10:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/18/2023 7:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/17/23 11:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/17/2023 9:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/17/23 10:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/17/2023 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/17/23 7:58 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2023 6:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/23 5:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2023 4:09 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that the Halting Problem isn't a >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Self-Contradictory" Quesiton, so >>>>>>>>>>>>> the answer doesn't apply. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's an interesting point that would often catch students >>>>>>>>>>>> out. And >>>>>>>>>>>> the reason /why/ it catches so many out eventually led me to >>>>>>>>>>>> stop using >>>>>>>>>>>> the proof-by-contradiction argument in my classes. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The thing is, it looks so very much like a >>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradicting question >>>>>>>>>>>> is being asked. The students think they can see it right >>>>>>>>>>>> there in the >>>>>>>>>>>> constructed code: "if H says I halt, I don't halt!". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, they are wrong. The code is /not/ there. The >>>>>>>>>>>> code calls a >>>>>>>>>>>> function that does not exist, so "it" (the constructed code, >>>>>>>>>>>> the whole >>>>>>>>>>>> program) does not exist either. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that it's code, and the students are almost all >>>>>>>>>>>> programmers and >>>>>>>>>>>> not mathematicians, makes it worse. A mathematician seeing >>>>>>>>>>>> "let p be >>>>>>>>>>>> the largest prime" does not assume that such a p exists. So >>>>>>>>>>>> when a >>>>>>>>>>>> prime number p' > p is constructed from p, this is not seen >>>>>>>>>>>> as a >>>>>>>>>>>> "self-contradictory number" because neither p nor p' exist. >>>>>>>>>>>> But the >>>>>>>>>>>> halting theorem is even more deceptive for programmers, >>>>>>>>>>>> because the >>>>>>>>>>>> desired function, H (or whatever), appears to be so well >>>>>>>>>>>> defined -- much >>>>>>>>>>>> more well-defined than "the largest prime". We have an exact >>>>>>>>>>>> specification for it, mapping arguments to returned values. >>>>>>>>>>>> It's just >>>>>>>>>>>> software engineering to write such things (they erroneously >>>>>>>>>>>> assume). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> These sorts of proof can always be re-worded so as to avoid >>>>>>>>>>>> the initial >>>>>>>>>>>> assumption. For example, we can start "let p be any prime", >>>>>>>>>>>> and from p >>>>>>>>>>>> we construct a prime p' > p. And for halting, we can start >>>>>>>>>>>> "let H be >>>>>>>>>>>> any subroutine of two arguments always returning true or >>>>>>>>>>>> false". Now, >>>>>>>>>>>> all the objects /do/ exist. In the first case, the >>>>>>>>>>>> construction shows >>>>>>>>>>>> that no prime is the largest, and in the second it shows >>>>>>>>>>>> that no >>>>>>>>>>>> subroutine computes the halting function. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This issue led to another change. In the last couple of >>>>>>>>>>>> years, I would >>>>>>>>>>>> start the course by setting Post's correspondence problem as >>>>>>>>>>>> if it were >>>>>>>>>>>> just a fun programming challenge. As the days passed (and >>>>>>>>>>>> the course >>>>>>>>>>>> got into more and more serious material) it would start to >>>>>>>>>>>> become clear >>>>>>>>>>>> that this was no ordinary programming challenge. Many >>>>>>>>>>>> students started >>>>>>>>>>>> to suspect that, despite the trivial sounding specification, >>>>>>>>>>>> no program >>>>>>>>>>>> could do the job. I always felt a bit uneasy doing this, as >>>>>>>>>>>> if I was >>>>>>>>>>>> not being 100% honest, but it was a very useful learning >>>>>>>>>>>> experience for >>>>>>>>>>>> most. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> sci.logic Daryl McCullough Jun 25, 2004, 6:30:39 PM >>>>>>>>>>> You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful >>>>>>>>>>> yes/no answer to the following question: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Will Jack's answer to this question be no? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the >>>>>>>>>>> question. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is an easily verified fact that when Jack's question is >>>>>>>>>>> posed to Jack >>>>>>>>>>> that this question is self-contradictory for Jack or anyone >>>>>>>>>>> else having >>>>>>>>>>> a pathological relationship to the question. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But the problem is "Jack" here is assumed to be a volitional >>>>>>>>>> being. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> H is not, it is a program, so before we even ask H what will >>>>>>>>>> happen, the answer has been fixed by the definition of the >>>>>>>>>> codr of H. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is also clear that when a question has no yes or no answer >>>>>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>>>>> it is self-contradictory that this question is aptly >>>>>>>>>>> classified as >>>>>>>>>>> incorrect. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And the actual question DOES have a yes or no answer, in this >>>>>>>>>> case, since H(D,D) says 0 (non-Halting) the actual answer to >>>>>>>>>> the question does D(D) Halt is YES. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You just confuse yourself by trying to imagine a program that >>>>>>>>>> can somehow change itself "at will". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is incorrect to say that a question is not >>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory on the >>>>>>>>>>> basis that it is not self-contradictory in some contexts. If >>>>>>>>>>> a question >>>>>>>>>>> is self-contradictory in some contexts then in these contexts >>>>>>>>>>> it is an >>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In what context is "Does the Machine D(D) Halt When run" >>>>>>>>>> become self-contradictory? >>>>>>>>> When this question is posed to machine H. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jack could be asked the question: >>>>>>>>> Will Jack answer "no" to this question? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For Jack it is self-contradictory for others that are not >>>>>>>>> Jack it is not self-contradictory. Context changes the semantics. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But you are missing the difference. A Decider is a fixed piece >>>>>>>> of code, so its answer has always been fixed to this question >>>>>>>> since it has been designed. Thus what it will say isn't a >>>>>>>> varialbe that can lead to the self-contradiction cycle, but a >>>>>>>> fixed result that will either be correct or incorrect. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Every input to a Turing machine decider such that both Boolean >>>>>>> return >>>>>>> values are incorrect is an incorrect input. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Except it isn't. The problem is you are looking at two different >>>>>> machines and two different inputs. >>>>>> >>>>> If no one can possibly correctly answer what the correct return >>>>> value that any H<n> having a pathological relationship to its input >>>>> D<n> could possibly provide then that is proof that D<n> is an >>>>> invalid input for H<n> in the same way that any self-contradictory >>>>> question is an incorrect question. >>>>> >>>> >>>> But you have the wrong Question. The Question is Does D(D) Halt, and >>>> that HAS a correct answer, since your H(D,D) returns 0, the answer >>>> is that D(D) does Halt, and thus H was wrong. >>>> >>> sci.logic Daryl McCullough Jun 25, 2004, 6:30:39 PM >>> You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful >>> yes/no answer to the following question: >>> >>> Will Jack's answer to this question be no? >>> >>> For Jack the question is self-contradictory for others that >>> are not Jack it is not self-contradictory. >>> >>> The context (of who is asked) changes the semantics. >>> >>> Every question that lacks a correct yes/no answer because >>> the question is self-contradictory is an incorrect question. >>> >>> If you are not a mere Troll you will agree with this. >>> >> >> But the ACTUAL QUESTION DOES have a correct answer. > The actual question posed to Jack has no correct answer. > The actual question posed to anyone else is a semantically > different question even though the words are the same. > But the question to Jack isn't the question you are actaully saying doesn't have an answer. Yes, asking Jack (a volitional being) about what he will do in the future can lead to this form of self-contradiction. Asking a "Program" (which isn't volitional, but deterministic) doesn't since the answer was fixed when the program was writte. It is like asking Jack if the answer to the LAST question was no, but constraining him that he also must answer it the same as that last question. It is the constraint that gives the impossibility to get a right answer, just as it is the fundamental constraint on a program to always give the same answer on the same input that leads to the impossibility of H to give the right answer. You just seem to be unable to tell the difference between things that are different, and don't seem to understand the fundamental nature of programs. You don't seem to understand the actual nature of Truth and Knowledge or Intelegence, thinking that an "Artificial Intelegence" is just the same as an "Intelegent and volitional Being". This seems to be your insanity.
Back to comp.ai.philosophy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 00:54 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 08:09 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 11:59 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 13:43 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 13:23 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 16:27 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-17 22:09 +0100
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 16:46 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2023-06-17 16:03 -0600
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 19:18 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 18:44 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 21:46 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 21:35 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 23:03 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 19:13 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 18:58 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 21:31 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 21:29 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 22:57 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 22:10 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 08:02 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 09:32 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 12:31 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 11:41 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 12:54 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 12:09 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 13:46 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 13:05 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 14:20 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 13:30 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 14:43 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 13:47 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 15:19 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 14:26 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 16:10 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 18:43 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 19:59 -0400
Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 22:31 -0500
Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-19 07:38 -0400
Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 09:30 -0500
Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-19 20:45 -0400
Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 22:57 -0500
Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? Don Stockbauer <donstockbauer@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-20 00:33 -0700
ChatGPT discussion (was: Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2023-06-20 11:16 +0000
Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 07:19 -0400
Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 10:09 -0500
Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 11:48 -0400
Ben Bacarisse specifically targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 10:06 -0500
Re: Ben Bacarisse specifically targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 11:48 -0400
Re: dishonest subject lines Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-20 17:02 +0100
Ben Bacarisse specifically targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 12:25 -0500
Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 14:57 -0500
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 16:34 -0400
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 15:42 -0500
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 16:52 -0400
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 16:39 -0500
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 17:53 -0400
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 17:07 -0500
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 18:52 -0400
Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 14:59 -0500
Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 15:00 -0500
ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2023-06-21 19:10 +0000
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2023-06-21 19:23 +0000
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 14:59 -0500
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-21 19:01 -0400
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 19:40 -0500
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-21 22:47 -0400
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 21:58 -0500
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-22 07:26 -0400
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 09:18 -0500
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-22 21:06 -0400
csiph-web