• Re: ChatGPT 4.0 keeps refuting every rebuttal of my work ---

    From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Oct 21 11:32:40 2024
    On 2024-10-21 01:09:00 +0000, olcott said:

    This is the recent dialogue that has been discussed
    for a few days with exactly one more question added:

    Could it be correct for HHH(DDD) to report on the
    behavior of the directly executed DDD()?

    https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2
    The first less than one page is the entire basis that
    ChatGPT 4.0 uses to evaluate my work.

    From the linked page: "This conversation may reflect the
    link creator’s personalized data, which isn’t shared and
    can meaningfully change how the model responds."

    ChatGPT is not an authority on anything. If you can't make present
    your argument then you can't argue. Opinions of an artificial idiot
    are not interesting.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Oct 22 10:07:56 2024
    On 2024-10-21 13:44:01 +0000, olcott said:

    On 10/21/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-10-21 01:09:00 +0000, olcott said:

    This is the recent dialogue that has been discussed
    for a few days with exactly one more question added:

    Could it be correct for HHH(DDD) to report on the
    behavior of the directly executed DDD()?

    https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2
    The first less than one page is the entire basis that
    ChatGPT 4.0 uses to evaluate my work.

    From the linked page: "This conversation may reflect the
    link creator’s personalized data, which isn’t shared and
    can meaningfully change how the model responds."

    ChatGPT is not an authority on anything. If you can't make present
    your argument then you can't argue. Opinions of an artificial idiot
    are not interesting.

    I dare you to find any mistake.
    The less than half page that I teach it is all
    correct C and correct software engineering.

    If you put a working draft on a web page then I may try. ChatGPT
    is inherently uninteresting. Usenet messages are too temporary
    for anything other than response messages.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Wed Oct 23 10:21:17 2024
    On 2024-10-22 13:57:22 +0000, olcott said:

    On 10/22/2024 2:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-10-21 13:44:01 +0000, olcott said:

    On 10/21/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-10-21 01:09:00 +0000, olcott said:

    This is the recent dialogue that has been discussed
    for a few days with exactly one more question added:

    Could it be correct for HHH(DDD) to report on the
    behavior of the directly executed DDD()?

    https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2
    The first less than one page is the entire basis that
    ChatGPT 4.0 uses to evaluate my work.

    From the linked page: "This conversation may reflect the
    link creator’s personalized data, which isn’t shared and
    can meaningfully change how the model responds."

    ChatGPT is not an authority on anything. If you can't make present
    your argument then you can't argue. Opinions of an artificial idiot
    are not interesting.

    I dare you to find any mistake.
    The less than half page that I teach it is all
    correct C and correct software engineering.

    If you put a working draft on a web page then I may try. ChatGPT
    is inherently uninteresting. Usenet messages are too temporary
    for anything other than response messages.


    USENET messages seems to be the most reliable permanent archive.

    USENET is not an archive. It is possible to maintain an archive of
    usenet messages but such arcive is not a part is USENET and is not
    required by USENET rules.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385090708_ChatGPT_Analyzes_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer

    *I will update this periodically*

    We may comment when you post update notifications.

    In the above version ChatGPT answers the following question:

    Could it be correct for HHH(DDD) to report on the behavior of the
    directly executed DDD()?

    That is not a well posed quesstion. What is the range of allowed
    hyptheses for by "could"? What is the norm that defines "correct"?

    By the usual meaning of "report" it is not correct to say that HHH
    reports anything. If simply says "true" or "false". The usual meainig
    of "report" is that it would at least say what is true.

    Your question above is essentially whether "yes" nor "no" is the right
    answer to an unkonwn question.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Wed Oct 23 19:16:41 2024
    On 10/23/24 8:52 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/23/2024 2:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-10-22 13:57:22 +0000, olcott said:

    On 10/22/2024 2:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-10-21 13:44:01 +0000, olcott said:

    On 10/21/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-10-21 01:09:00 +0000, olcott said:

    This is the recent dialogue that has been discussed
    for a few days with exactly one more question added:

    Could it be correct for HHH(DDD) to report on the
    behavior of the directly executed DDD()?

    https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2
    The first less than one page is the entire basis that
    ChatGPT 4.0 uses to evaluate my work.

    From the linked page: "This conversation may reflect the
    link creator’s personalized data, which isn’t shared and
    can meaningfully change how the model responds."

    ChatGPT is not an authority on anything. If you can't make present >>>>>> your argument then you can't argue. Opinions of an artificial idiot >>>>>> are not interesting.

    I dare you to find any mistake.
    The less than half page that I teach it is all
    correct C and correct software engineering.

    If you put a working draft on a web page then I may try. ChatGPT
    is inherently uninteresting. Usenet messages are too temporary
    for anything other than response messages.


    USENET messages seems to be the most reliable permanent archive.

    USENET is not an archive. It is possible to maintain an archive of
    usenet messages but such arcive is not a part is USENET and is not
    required by USENET rules.

    https://www.researchgate.net/
    publication/385090708_ChatGPT_Analyzes_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer
    *I will update this periodically*

    We may comment when you post update notifications.

    In the above version ChatGPT answers the following question:

    Could it be correct for HHH(DDD) to report on the behavior of the
    directly executed DDD()?

    That is not a well posed quesstion. What is the range of allowed
    hyptheses for by "could"? What is the norm that defines "correct"?

    By the usual meaning of "report" it is not correct to say that HHH
    reports anything. If simply says "true" or "false". The usual meainig
    of "report" is that it would at least say what is true.

    Your question above is essentially whether "yes" nor "no" is the right
    answer to an unkonwn question.


    Could it be correct for HHH(DDD) to report on the behavior of the
    directly executed DDD()?

    Within this context: https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2



    Since the ONLY context that matters is the one defined by the system you
    claim to be working in, the system that contains the halting problem, it doesn't matter what can be shown in a different system that will likely
    turn out just to be inconsistant, and definitely isn't well defined.

    Sorry, you don't get to change the definitions of fundamental terms and
    stay in the system.

    IF you want to talk about Olcott-Termination, and not actual
    Termination, then go ahead and try to frame things, just remember you
    first need to fully define your terms, and then show that there is a
    reason anyone would care about your concepts.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)