Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Verified facts regarding the software engineering of DDD, HHH, and HHH1 --- TYPO Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 23:04:22 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 191 Message-ID: References: <6fa1774ec1e4b13035be3eab85555b609b301d69@i2pn2.org> <3570d58cf5fea3a0a8ac8724b653d1596447d0d1@i2pn2.org> <3db3ceb1eac447b89c8c740dbba31774eeb1ad99@i2pn2.org> <9a91d75b6beb959665d2a042677ef61f444608a5@i2pn2.org> <525ed75662589a150afa1ea268b199a166a7b98b@i2pn2.org> <13583474d25855e665daa98d91605e958f5cf472@i2pn2.org> <45ea7a6da46453c9da62c1149fa1cf7739218c5f@i2pn2.org> <2a210ab064b3a8c3397600b4fe87aa390868bb12@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 06:04:23 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="766a907a9bb0f5f92f439e6d0440e983"; logging-data="1982442"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19hyBixWALbrHPde/WMdEcm" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:mfcS/pmBy7ilU0orhUI6jc1GVlQ= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241022-6, 10/22/2024), Outbound message In-Reply-To: <2a210ab064b3a8c3397600b4fe87aa390868bb12@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 9993 On 10/22/2024 10:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/22/24 11:25 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/22/2024 10:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/22/24 11:57 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> But HHH only does so INCOMPLETELY. >>> >>>> >>>> (b) HHH and HHH1 have verbatim identical c source >>>> code, except for their differing names. >>> >>> So? the fact the give different results just proves that they must >>> have a "hidden input" thta gives them that different behavior, so >>> they can't be actually deciders. >>> >>> HHH1 either references itself with the name HHH1, instead of the name >>> HHH, so has DIFFERENT source code, or your code uses assembly to >>> extract the address that it is running at, making that address a >>> "hidden input" to the code. >>> >>> So, you just proved that you never meet your basic requirements, and >>> everything is just a lie. >>> >>>> >>>> (c) DDD emulated by HHH has different behavior than >>>> DDD emulated by HHH1. >>> >>> No, just less of it because HHH aborts its emulation. >>> >>> Aborted emulation doesn't provide final behavior. >>> >>>> >>>> (d) Each DDD *correctly_emulated_by* any HHH that >>>> this DDD calls cannot possibly return no matter >>>> what this HHH does. >>>> >>> >>> No, it can not be emulated by that HHH to that point, but that >>> doesn't mean that the behavior of program DDD doesn't get there. >>> >>> Halt Deciding / Termination Analysis is about the behavior of the >>> program described, and thus all you are showing is that you aren't >>> working on either of those problems, but have just been lying. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========