Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
| 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 | (17 earlier) <u6nh17$1ne5g$1@dont-email.me> <0WHjM.9605$8fUf.6382@fx16.iad> <u6njgi$1nnnq$1@dont-email.me> <NMIjM.3721$a0G8.1033@fx34.iad> <u6nlol$1nnnq$4@dont-email.me> |
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
| Message-ID | <dxJjM.614$L836.450@fx47.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Date | 2023-06-18 16:10 -0400 |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 6/18/23 3:26 PM, olcott wrote: > 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>. > > So they are different programs. Different is different. Almost the same is not the same. Unless you are claiming that 1 is the same as 0, they are different. So, your claim is based on a LIE, or you are admitting you are insane.
Back to sci.logic | 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 Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 00:54 -0700
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 Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 10:24 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 12:35 -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 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 Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 08:50 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 08:59 -0700
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 Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 09:54 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 12:03 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 10:18 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 12:24 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 11:05 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 13:09 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 11:44 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 13:55 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 11:56 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 14:10 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 12:30 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 18:41 -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 20:01 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 17:38 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 19:59 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 21:29 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 20:43 -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 22:38 -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]? Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 08:07 -0700
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]? 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
Termination Analyzer H determines the semantic property of .. olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 23:58 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H determines the semantic property of .. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-19 07:38 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 20:27 -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 21:34 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 17:15 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 19:46 -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
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 08:37 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 10:58 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 11:18 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 15:04 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 14:32 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-19 21:08 +0100
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question PLEASE LOOK AT MT REPLY [Ben Bacarisse] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 15:22 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 14:17 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-19 23:48 +0100
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 17:10 -0700
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
Re: Bla Bla bla Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 10:33 -0700
Ben Bacarisse specifically targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 13:17 -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
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 23:12 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 23:01 -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