Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Verified facts regarding the software engineering of DDD, HHH, and HHH1 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 10:57:36 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 111 Message-ID: References: <6fa1774ec1e4b13035be3eab85555b609b301d69@i2pn2.org> <3570d58cf5fea3a0a8ac8724b653d1596447d0d1@i2pn2.org> <3db3ceb1eac447b89c8c740dbba31774eeb1ad99@i2pn2.org> <9a91d75b6beb959665d2a042677ef61f444608a5@i2pn2.org> <525ed75662589a150afa1ea268b199a166a7b98b@i2pn2.org> <13583474d25855e665daa98d91605e958f5cf472@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 17:57:37 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0250fa4f333a237bb4a9bec06e6bd0e6"; logging-data="1611475"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+tKJM0EtEg6nI26+0Pvoh5" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:jiU8qboZ56s0GNU0Ul92v2DHEJY= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241022-2, 10/22/2024), Outbound message In-Reply-To: <13583474d25855e665daa98d91605e958f5cf472@i2pn2.org> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6698 On 10/22/2024 10:18 AM, joes wrote: > Am Tue, 22 Oct 2024 08:47:39 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 10/22/2024 4:50 AM, joes wrote: >>> Am Mon, 21 Oct 2024 22:04:49 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 10/21/2024 9:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 10/21/24 7:08 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 10/21/2024 6:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/21/24 6:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/21/2024 5:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/21/24 12:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2024 10:17 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 21 Oct 2024 08:41:11 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2024 3:39 AM, joes wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Did ChatGPT generate that? >>>>>>>>>> If it did then I need *ALL the input that caused it to generate >>>>>>>>>> that* >>> It's not like it will deterministically regenerate the same output. > >>>>>>>>> No, someone using some REAL INTELEGENCE, as opposed to a program >>>>>>>>> using "artificial intelegence" that had been loaded with false >>>>>>>>> premises and other lies. >>>>>>>> I specifically asked it to verify that its key assumption is >>>>>>>> correct and it did. >>>>>>> No, it said that given what you told it (which was a lie) >>>>>> I asked it if what it was told was a lie and it explained how what >>>>>> it was told is correct. >>> "naw, I wasn't lied to, they said they were saying the truth" sure >>> buddy. >>> >>>>> Because Chat GPT doesn't care about lying. >>>> ChatGPT computes the truth and you can't actually show otherwise. >>> HAHAHAHAHA there isn't anything about truth in there, prove me wrong > >>>>> Because what you are asking for is nonsense. >>>>> Of course an AI that has been programmed with lies might repeat the >>>>> lies. >>>>> When it is told the actual definition, after being told your lies, >>>>> and asked if your conclusion could be right, it said No. >>>>> Thus, it seems by your logic, you have to admit defeat, as the AI, >>>>> after being told your lies, still was able to come up with the >>>>> correct answer, that DDD will halt, and that HHH is just incorrect to >>>>> say it doesn't. >>>> I believe that the "output" Joes provided was fake on the basis that >>>> she did not provide the input to derive that output and did not use >>>> the required basis that was on the link. >>> I definitely typed something out in the style of an LLM instead of my >>> own words /s >>> >>>>> If you want me to pay more attention to what you say, you first need >>>>> to return the favor, and at least TRY to find an error in what I say, >>>>> and be based on more than just that you think that can't be right. >>>>> But you can't do that, as you don't actually know any facts about the >>>>> field that you can point to qualified references. >>>> You cannot show that my premises are actually false. >>>> To show that they are false would at least require showing that they >>>> contradict each other. >>> Accepting your premises makes the problem uninteresting. >> That seems to indicate that you are admitting that you cheated when you >> discussed this with ChatGPT. You gave it a faulty basis and then argued >> against that. > Just no. Do you believe that I didn't write this myself after all? > >> They also conventional within the context of software engineering. That >> software engineering conventions seem incompatible with computer science >> conventions may refute the latter. > lol > >> The a halt decider must report on the behavior that itself is contained >> within seems to be an incorrect convention. > Just because you don't like the undecidability of the halting problem? > >> u32 HHH1(ptr P) // line 721 >> u32 HHH(ptr P) // line 801 >> The above two functions have identical C code except for their name. >> >> The input to HHH1(DDD) halts. The input to HHH(DDD) does not halt. This >> conclusively proves that the pathological relationship between DDD and >> HHH makes a difference in the behavior of DDD. > That makes no sense. DDD halts or doesn't either way. HHH and HHH1 may > give different answers, but then exactly one of them must be wrong. > Do they both call HHH? How does their execution differ? > void DDD() { HHH(DDD); return; } *It is a verified fact that* (a) Both HHH1 and HHH emulate DDD according to the semantics of the x86 language. (b) HHH and HHH1 have verbatim identical c source code, except for their differing names. (c) DDD emulated by HHH has different behavior than DDD emulated by HHH1. (d) Each DDD *correctly_emulated_by* any HHH that this DDD calls cannot possibly return no matter what this HHH does. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer