Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.ai.philosophy > #29744
| 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 | (15 earlier) <u6ndou$1n25p$2@dont-email.me> <tpHjM.1403$JLp4.393@fx46.iad> <u6nh17$1ne5g$1@dont-email.me> <0WHjM.9605$8fUf.6382@fx16.iad> <u6nig9$1ne5g$3@dont-email.me> |
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
| Message-ID | <efIjM.2176$VKY6.1719@fx13.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Date | 2023-06-18 14:43 -0400 |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 6/18/23 2:30 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/18/2023 1:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/18/23 2:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/18/2023 12:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/18/23 1:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/18/2023 11:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> The question posed to Jack does not have an answer because within the >>>>> context that the question is posed to Jack it is self-contradictory. >>>>> You can ignore that context matters yet that is not any rebuttal. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Right, but that has ZERO bearig on the Halting Problem, >>> That is great we made excellent progress on this. >>> >>> When ChatGPT understood that Jack's question is self-contradictory for >>> Jack then it was also able to understand the following isomorphism: >>> >>> For every H<n> on pathological input D<n> both Boolean return values >>> from H<n> are incorrect for D<n> proving that D<n> is isomorphic to a >>> self-contradictory question for every H<n>. >>> >> >> No, because a given H<n> can only give one result, > In other words you fail to understand that when Jack's question is posed > to someone else that it remains self-contradictory. > And you fail to understand that the nature of the halting question is fundamentally different then the question to Jack. The Question to Jack is about the future behavior of a volitional being, so it doesn't have a "correct" answer until some point after it is answered. The halting problem is about the results of a determinist computation that has a correct answer even somewhat before the question can be asked (but maybe not until the question CAN be asked). There are philosophical arguments about the Jack question asked to someone besides Jack, if it even HAS a "Correct answer" at the point the question is asked, since the answer doesn't actually HAVE a truth value until Jack answers his next question. On the other hand, the question about the behavior of D(D) has a correct answer as soon as D is actually constructed (or defined) which requires that H be constructed (or fully defined). At that point, the answer is fixed, and just happens to be that which makes H incorrect (if H answers). The question you keep on looking at isn't the actual halting question, but a design question on the path of trying to make a correct decider H. The fact that THIS question leads you to the impossible state shows that there can not be a correct H, not that the Halting Question is malformed. It just shows that the Halting Question isn't computable. It is answerable, just maybe not by a "computation". You are just showing your inability to actually distinguish between things that are categorically different, because you have lost your connection to reality.
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