Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
| 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 13:30 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <u6nig9$1ne5g$3@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (14 earlier) <5FGjM.3718$a0G8.2055@fx34.iad> <u6ndou$1n25p$2@dont-email.me> <tpHjM.1403$JLp4.393@fx46.iad> <u6nh17$1ne5g$1@dont-email.me> <0WHjM.9605$8fUf.6382@fx16.iad> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 6/18/2023 1:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/18/23 2:05 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/18/2023 12:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/18/23 1:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/18/2023 11:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/18/23 12:41 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/18/2023 11:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/18/23 10:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/18/2023 7:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/17/23 11:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2023 9:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/23 10:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2023 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/23 7:58 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2023 6:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/23 5:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2023 4:09 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that the Halting Problem isn't a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Self-Contradictory" Quesiton, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the answer doesn't apply. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's an interesting point that would often catch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> students out. And >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the reason /why/ it catches so many out eventually led >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to stop using >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the proof-by-contradiction argument in my classes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The thing is, it looks so very much like a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradicting question >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is being asked. The students think they can see it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right there in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constructed code: "if H says I halt, I don't halt!". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, they are wrong. The code is /not/ there. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The code calls a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function that does not exist, so "it" (the constructed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code, the whole >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program) does not exist either. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that it's code, and the students are almost >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all programmers and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not mathematicians, makes it worse. A mathematician >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing "let p be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the largest prime" does not assume that such a p >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists. So when a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prime number p' > p is constructed from p, this is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seen as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "self-contradictory number" because neither p nor p' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist. But the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting theorem is even more deceptive for programmers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> desired function, H (or whatever), appears to be so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well defined -- much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more well-defined than "the largest prime". We have an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specification for it, mapping arguments to returned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values. It's just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software engineering to write such things (they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> erroneously assume). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These sorts of proof can always be re-worded so as to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid the initial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumption. For example, we can start "let p be any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prime", and from p >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we construct a prime p' > p. And for halting, we can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start "let H be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any subroutine of two arguments always returning true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or false". Now, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all the objects /do/ exist. In the first case, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construction shows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that no prime is the largest, and in the second it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows that no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subroutine computes the halting function. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This issue led to another change. In the last couple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of years, I would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start the course by setting Post's correspondence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem as if it were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just a fun programming challenge. As the days passed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and the course >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> got into more and more serious material) it would start >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to become clear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that this was no ordinary programming challenge. Many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> students started >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to suspect that, despite the trivial sounding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specification, no program >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could do the job. I always felt a bit uneasy doing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this, as if I was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not being 100% honest, but it was a very useful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learning experience for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sci.logic Daryl McCullough Jun 25, 2004, 6:30:39 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truthful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes/no answer to the following question: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will Jack's answer to this question be no? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is an easily verified fact that when Jack's question >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is posed to Jack >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that this question is self-contradictory for Jack or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone else having >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a pathological relationship to the question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the problem is "Jack" here is assumed to be a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> volitional being. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is not, it is a program, so before we even ask H what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will happen, the answer has been fixed by the definition >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the codr of H. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is also clear that when a question has no yes or no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is self-contradictory that this question is aptly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classified as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the actual question DOES have a yes or no answer, in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this case, since H(D,D) says 0 (non-Halting) the actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer to the question does D(D) Halt is YES. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just confuse yourself by trying to imagine a program >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can somehow change itself "at will". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is incorrect to say that a question is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis that it is not self-contradictory in some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contexts. If a question >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is self-contradictory in some contexts then in these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contexts it is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In what context is "Does the Machine D(D) Halt When run" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become self-contradictory? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When this question is posed to machine H. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack could be asked the question: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will Jack answer "no" to this question? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For Jack it is self-contradictory for others that are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack it is not self-contradictory. Context changes the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you are missing the difference. A Decider is a fixed >>>>>>>>>>>>> piece of code, so its answer has always been fixed to this >>>>>>>>>>>>> question since it has been designed. Thus what it will say >>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a varialbe that can lead to the self-contradiction >>>>>>>>>>>>> cycle, but a fixed result that will either be correct or >>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Every input to a Turing machine decider such that both >>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean return >>>>>>>>>>>> values are incorrect is an incorrect input. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Except it isn't. The problem is you are looking at two >>>>>>>>>>> different machines and two different inputs. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If no one can possibly correctly answer what the correct >>>>>>>>>> return value that any H<n> having a pathological relationship >>>>>>>>>> to its input D<n> could possibly provide then that is proof >>>>>>>>>> that D<n> is an invalid input for H<n> in the same way that >>>>>>>>>> any self-contradictory question is an incorrect question. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But you have the wrong Question. The Question is Does D(D) >>>>>>>>> Halt, and that HAS a correct answer, since your H(D,D) returns >>>>>>>>> 0, the answer is that D(D) does Halt, and thus H was wrong. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> sci.logic Daryl McCullough Jun 25, 2004, 6:30:39 PM >>>>>>>> You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful >>>>>>>> yes/no answer to the following question: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Will Jack's answer to this question be no? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For Jack the question is self-contradictory for others that >>>>>>>> are not Jack it is not self-contradictory. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The context (of who is asked) changes the semantics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Every question that lacks a correct yes/no answer because >>>>>>>> the question is self-contradictory is an incorrect question. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you are not a mere Troll you will agree with this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But the ACTUAL QUESTION DOES have a correct answer. >>>>>> The actual question posed to Jack has no correct answer. >>>>>> The actual question posed to anyone else is a semantically >>>>>> different question even though the words are the same. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But the question to Jack isn't the question you are actaully saying >>>>> doesn't have an answer. >>>>> >>>> The question posed to Jack does not have an answer because within the >>>> context that the question is posed to Jack it is self-contradictory. >>>> You can ignore that context matters yet that is not any rebuttal. >>>> >>> >>> Right, but that has ZERO bearig on the Halting Problem, >> That is great we made excellent progress on this. >> >> When ChatGPT understood that Jack's question is self-contradictory for >> Jack then it was also able to understand the following isomorphism: >> >> For every H<n> on pathological input D<n> both Boolean return values >> from H<n> are incorrect for D<n> proving that D<n> is isomorphic to a >> self-contradictory question for every H<n>. >> > > No, because a given H<n> can only give one result, In other words you fail to understand that when Jack's question is posed to someone else that it remains self-contradictory. -- 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 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