Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.ai.philosophy > #29747
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic, comp.ai.philosophy |
| Subject | Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question |
| Date | 2023-06-18 14:26 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <u6nlol$1nnnq$4@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (16 earlier) <tpHjM.1403$JLp4.393@fx46.iad> <u6nh17$1ne5g$1@dont-email.me> <0WHjM.9605$8fUf.6382@fx16.iad> <u6njgi$1nnnq$1@dont-email.me> <NMIjM.3721$a0G8.1033@fx34.iad> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 6/18/2023 2:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/18/23 2:47 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, >> Some of the elements of H<n>/D<n> are identical except for the return >> value from H. In both of these cases the return value is incorrect. > > Nope, can't be. The only difference between otherwise identical pairs of pairs H<n>/D<n> and H<m>/D<m> is the single integer values of 0/1 within H<n> and H<m> respectively thus proving that both True and False are the wrong return value for the identical finite string pairs D<n>/D<m>. -- Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
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