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 | (5 earlier) <u6lhbb$1da24$2@dont-email.me> <i8tjM.5978$Zq81.1390@fx15.iad> <u6lq6v$1i475$1@dont-email.me> <joujM.1824$VKY6.722@fx13.iad> <u6lsjq$1id16$1@dont-email.me> |
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
| Message-ID | <knCjM.62$_%y4.58@fx48.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Date | 2023-06-18 08:02 -0400 |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
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. It isn't a proper question to ask what a given machine should return, since what it returns is determined by what its code it. The fact that the DESIGN question of what can we design H to return for this question, that NOW actually become pathological and creates a self-contradiction, just shows, as you are trying to use logic to show, that such a design is impossible. This means that the problem is unsolvable, and thus no universally correct halt decider can exist. It doesn't mean the problem was incorrect. MANY problems prove impossible to solve, but are still valid problem, its just their answer is that no answer exists. For instance, what are the real roots of x*x + 1 = 0. That is a problem with no solutions, but is still a perfectly valid question. Your logic system is very poor if you don't allow the asking of questions without solutions, and in fact, such a system becomes nearly worthless, as you can ask about things until you actaully can know the question has an answer, but you can't even ask if it has an asnswer, until you know if THAT question has an answer, and so on.
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