Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > sci.logic > #254525

Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question

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 <u6jhqq$1570m$1@dont-email.me> <FnhjM.5848$33q9.1032@fx35.iad> <871qi9oky8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <u6l9jr$1ccr7$1@dont-email.me>
From Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org>
Message-ID <j6rjM.5494$HtC8.4636@fx36.iad> (permalink)
Organization Forte - www.forteinc.com
Date 2023-06-17 19:13 -0400

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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?

Remember, to ask the question, D has to have been defined, which means H 
has been defined, so there is no arguing about "if H acted different" 
since the specific example can't act different.

> 
> When we clearly understand the truth of this then and only then we have
> the means to overcome the enormous inertia of the [received view] of
> the conventional wisdom regarding decision problems that are only
> undecidable because of pathological relationships.

No, you have poisoned your brain to think that reality doesn't actually 
matter. You have made yourself an idiot.

H does what it does, and arguing about what would happen if it did 
something else is like claiming cats can bark, because if a cat was a 
dog, it could do that.

> 
> Because of the brilliant work of Daryl McCullough we can see the actual
> reality behind decision problems that are undecidable because of their
> pathological relationships.
> 
> It only took ChatGPT a few hours and 60 pages of dialogue
> to understand and agree with this.
> https://www.liarparadox.org/ChatGPT_HP.pdf
> 
> ChatGPT:
>    "Therefore, based on the understanding that self-contradictory
>     questions lack a correct answer and are deemed incorrect, one could
>     argue that the halting problem's pathological input D can be
>     categorized as an incorrect question when posed to the halting
>     decider H."
> 


And, as pointed out, that isn't the question being ask, so you arguement 
just shows you are wrong.

IF you think that a given machine's halting property when it is run 
depends on who you ask, shows you are just STUPID.

Back to sci.logic | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

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