Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder2.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: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 20:04:24 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 277 Message-ID: References: <3db3ceb1eac447b89c8c740dbba31774eeb1ad99@i2pn2.org> <9a91d75b6beb959665d2a042677ef61f444608a5@i2pn2.org> <525ed75662589a150afa1ea268b199a166a7b98b@i2pn2.org> <13583474d25855e665daa98d91605e958f5cf472@i2pn2.org> <45ea7a6da46453c9da62c1149fa1cf7739218c5f@i2pn2.org> <2a210ab064b3a8c3397600b4fe87aa390868bb12@i2pn2.org> <4c67570b4898e14665bde2dfdf473130b89b7dd4@i2pn2.org> <94449dae60f42358ae29bb710ca9bc3b18c60ad7@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 03:04:25 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7cff08f8c76bdb8ebdc0a44831f3107c"; logging-data="3013177"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/XOXHUBoUH+LaButWHjSEk" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:5zJ/r/ixCz6pIrZUN8E+2j0YiJg= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241024-12, 10/24/2024), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <94449dae60f42358ae29bb710ca9bc3b18c60ad7@i2pn2.org> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Bytes: 14425 On 10/24/2024 6:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/24/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/23/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/23/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/23/2024 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 10/23/24 8:33 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 10/23/2024 6:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/23/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========