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 11:41 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <u6nc3t$1mvav$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (8 earlier) <joujM.1824$VKY6.722@fx13.iad> <u6lsjq$1id16$1@dont-email.me> <knCjM.62$_%y4.58@fx48.iad> <u6n4ho$1m6pt$1@dont-email.me> <PjGjM.29243$8uge.16102@fx14.iad> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
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. -- 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 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