Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!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: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 08:37:32 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 291 Message-ID: References: <9a91d75b6beb959665d2a042677ef61f444608a5@i2pn2.org> <525ed75662589a150afa1ea268b199a166a7b98b@i2pn2.org> <13583474d25855e665daa98d91605e958f5cf472@i2pn2.org> <45ea7a6da46453c9da62c1149fa1cf7739218c5f@i2pn2.org> <2a210ab064b3a8c3397600b4fe87aa390868bb12@i2pn2.org> <4c67570b4898e14665bde2dfdf473130b89b7dd4@i2pn2.org> <94449dae60f42358ae29bb710ca9bc3b18c60ad7@i2pn2.org> <0553e6ab73fa9a21f062de4d645549ae48fd0a64@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 15:37:33 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7cff08f8c76bdb8ebdc0a44831f3107c"; logging-data="3361479"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+HFM0sovaP8cMWgS3Q7+x3" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:GV7vYvi2ZmDntlXQHMs2U7eAMb4= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241025-2, 10/25/2024), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <0553e6ab73fa9a21f062de4d645549ae48fd0a64@i2pn2.org> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Bytes: 15515 On 10/25/2024 7:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/24/24 9:04 PM, olcott wrote: >> 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========