Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Verified facts regarding the software engineering of DDD, HHH,
 and HHH1 --- TYPO
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 08:27:35 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0553e6ab73fa9a21f062de4d645549ae48fd0a64@i2pn2.org>
References: <vf3eu5$fbb3$2@dont-email.me> <vf5vi4$10jkk$1@dont-email.me>
 <3db3ceb1eac447b89c8c740dbba31774eeb1ad99@i2pn2.org>
 <vf6loq$136ja$1@dont-email.me>
 <9a91d75b6beb959665d2a042677ef61f444608a5@i2pn2.org>
 <vf6mt7$136ja$2@dont-email.me>
 <ad43f56a12181e10f59b8a1e6220ed7989b6c973@i2pn2.org>
 <vf74oh$1a8oo$1@dont-email.me>
 <525ed75662589a150afa1ea268b199a166a7b98b@i2pn2.org>
 <vf8ads$1gkf5$1@dont-email.me>
 <13583474d25855e665daa98d91605e958f5cf472@i2pn2.org>
 <vf8i1g$1h5mj$4@dont-email.me>
 <45ea7a6da46453c9da62c1149fa1cf7739218c5f@i2pn2.org>
 <vf9qai$1scol$1@dont-email.me>
 <2a210ab064b3a8c3397600b4fe87aa390868bb12@i2pn2.org>
 <vf9sk6$1sfva$2@dont-email.me>
 <4c67570b4898e14665bde2dfdf473130b89b7dd4@i2pn2.org>
 <vfaqe7$21k64$1@dont-email.me>
 <f789d3ef27e3000f04feb3df4fc561c5da02381f@i2pn2.org>
 <vfcbl5$2b6h0$2@dont-email.me>
 <b707850664ad22bb1172006f4e24a27633ff1a4d@i2pn2.org>
 <vfe344$2o992$1@dont-email.me>
 <94449dae60f42358ae29bb710ca9bc3b18c60ad7@i2pn2.org>
 <vfeqqo$2ruhp$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 12:27:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3598113"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vfeqqo$2ruhp$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 16206
Lines: 306

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 of 
>>>>>>>>>>>> the name HHH, so has DIFFERENT source code, or your code 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========