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 | (13 earlier) <u6nc3t$1mvav$1@dont-email.me> <5FGjM.3718$a0G8.2055@fx34.iad> <u6ndou$1n25p$2@dont-email.me> <tpHjM.1403$JLp4.393@fx46.iad> <u6nh17$1ne5g$1@dont-email.me> |
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
| Message-ID | <0WHjM.9605$8fUf.6382@fx16.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Date | 2023-06-18 14:20 -0400 |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
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, the result that its code will generate. The other "oossibe output" is actually impossible for THAT H<n> to generate, and thus talking about it doing so is invalid logic. For example, for your defined H in your sample code, since H(D,D) returns 0, the correct answer is 1, so both answers are not incorrect, only the answer that H gives. Your logic is like asking what is the color of a black cat that is white? The question has an illogical premise (that something that is black can be white) just like your question does, that a given program COULD return both answers. The things that produce the two answers are different programs. The key point is that whatever value a given H generates, the OTHER value would have been correct, due to the "pathological" nature of D<n>. Thus, for every questions "Does D<n>(D<n>) Halt" there IS a correct value that a correct halt decider should return. The problem is that, by its code, H<n> doesn't happen to generate that value. You are confusig the volitional Jack with the deterministic H<n>. Jack, because his future chose isn't fixed, and he has free will to chose his answer, sees the self-contradiction. H<n>, because it doesn't have free-will, and whose answer has been fixed by its programing, is just wrong, and the correct answer does exist, it just doesn't give it. You get yourself stuck on the WRONG question that is actually put to the free-will designer, what should I program my H to generate for a problem generated by this template. yes THAT question is self-contraditory, which shows that the programmer can't write a valid program to give the right answer, because the correct answer is not computable. The key is that the actual Halting Question can't possibly be asked, until the programmer commits themselve to a claimed answer, as the input program can't exist until the claim decider exists as an actual program, and once you do that, the self-contradiction has been resolved, and the decider is proven wrong.
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 00:54 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 08:09 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 11:59 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 13:43 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 13:23 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 16:27 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-17 22:09 +0100
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 16:46 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2023-06-17 16:03 -0600
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 19:18 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 18:44 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 21:46 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 21:35 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 23:03 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 19:13 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 18:58 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 21:31 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 21:29 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 22:57 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 22:10 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 08:02 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 09:32 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 12:31 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 11:41 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 12:54 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 12:09 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 13:46 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 13:05 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 14:20 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 13:30 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 14:43 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 13:47 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 15:19 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 14:26 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 16:10 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 18:43 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 19:59 -0400
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 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]? 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
Ben Bacarisse specifically targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 10:06 -0500
Re: Ben Bacarisse specifically targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 11:48 -0400
Re: dishonest subject lines Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-20 17:02 +0100
Ben Bacarisse specifically targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 12:25 -0500
Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 14:57 -0500
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 16:34 -0400
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 15:42 -0500
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 16:52 -0400
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 16:39 -0500
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 17:53 -0400
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 17:07 -0500
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 18:52 -0400
Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 14:59 -0500
Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 15:00 -0500
ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2023-06-21 19:10 +0000
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2023-06-21 19:23 +0000
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 14:59 -0500
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-21 19:01 -0400
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 19:40 -0500
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-21 22:47 -0400
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 21:58 -0500
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-22 07:26 -0400
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 09:18 -0500
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-22 21:06 -0400
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
csiph-web