Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!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 11:45:11 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0911038494da3f0613bcc3f31271820baa79a0b2@i2pn2.org>
References: <vf3eu5$fbb3$2@dont-email.me> <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>
 <vfc96p$2b6h0$1@dont-email.me>
 <74edcca800e7af74169cea47cb8f1715d3a5145f@i2pn2.org>
 <vfdihe$2kvn4$2@dont-email.me>
 <4abd6615b2730699ecc474d01b97163917e0b01d@i2pn2.org>
 <vfeqbs$2rugm$1@dont-email.me>
 <d7e366b37fa336944a72bb41a0e655076b6b335f@i2pn2.org>
 <vfg82q$36im7$4@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 15:45:11 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3622056"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vfg82q$36im7$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7235
Lines: 130

On 10/25/24 9:56 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/25/2024 7:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/24/24 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/24/2024 6:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/24/24 9:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/23/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/23/24 9:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> ChatGPT does completely understand this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, it is just a stupid idiot that has been taught to repeat what 
>>>>>> it has been told.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a brilliant genius that seems to infallibly deduce all
>>>>> of the subtle nuances of each of the consequences on the basis
>>>>> of a set of premises.
>>>>
>>>> I guess you don't undetstand how "Large Language Models work, do you.
>>>>
>>>> It has NO actual intelegence, or ability to "deduce" nuances, it is 
>>>> just a massive pattern matching system.
>>>>
>>>> All you are doing is proving how little you understand about what 
>>>> you are talking about,
>>>>
>>>> Remember, at the bottom of the page is a WARNING that it can make 
>>>> mistakes. And feeding it LIES, like you do is one easy way to do that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is much more to this than your superficial
>>> understanding.  Here is a glimpse:
>>> https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/03/04/1089403/large-language- 
>>> models-amazing-but-nobody-knows-why/
>>>
>>> The bottom line is that ChatGPT made no error in its
>>> evaluation of my work when this evaluation is based on
>>> pure reasoning. It is only when my work is measured
>>> against arbitrary dogma that cannot be justified with
>>> pure reasoning that makes me and ChatGPT seem incorrect.
>>>
>>> If use your same approach to these things we could say that
>>> ZFC stupidly fails to have a glimmering of understanding of
>>> Naive set theory. From your perspective ZFC is a damned liar.
>>>
>>
>> The articles says no such thing.
>>
> 
> *large-language-models-amazing-but-nobody-knows-why*
> They are much smarter and can figure out all kinds of
> things. Their original designers have no idea how they
> do this.
> 
>> In fact, it comments about the problem of "overfitting" where the 
>> processing get the wrong answers because it over generalizes.
>>
>> This is because the modeling process has no concept of actual meaning, 
>> and thus of truth, only the patterns that it has seen.
>>
>> AI's don't "Reason", they patern match and compare.
>>
>> Note, that "arbitrary dogma" that you try to reject, are the RULES and 
>> DEFINITONS of the system that you claim to be working in.
>>
> 
> How about we stipulate that the system that I am
> working in is termination analysis for the x86 language.
> as my system software says in its own name: x86utm.

But it doesn;t actually know


Just came accross an interesting parody about LLMs, showing there issues

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbfii4wz2ys&ab_channel=HonestAds

It seems you are just one of those taken in by it.

> 
>> By your logic, Trump was right that he won, because he was saying we 
>> need to ignore the "dogma" of the truth and rules about voting, but 
>> instead use the fact that he got more votes than anyone else prior. 
>> That is the "proof" that he must have won, and the fact that Biden got 
>> more than him is just a misuse of "dogma".
>>
>> Sorry, you are just proving how utterly STUPID and IGNORANT you are, 
>> and that you logic has absolutely ZERO basis.
>>
>> Your new dependence of Chat GPT just shows your stupidity, 
> 
> I have no need to depend on ChatGPT, yet ChatGPT does correctly
> make every rebuttal of my work look ridiculously foolish.

No, you have NOTHING without your references to Chat GPT, because all 
your previous claims have been disproven.

> 
> Because of its preexisting knowledge of software development
> it can even verify that the basis that it was given is a correct
> basis.  What you call are lies are commonly known verified facts.

Nope, they are just lies.
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
> publication/385090708_ChatGPT_Analyzes_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer
> 

And you said you didn't need to depend on Chat GPT, and then you just 
write a paper that its whole point is that Chat GPT agrees with you 
after you give it the false definitions.

Your statement is in error when you said:

Every C programmer that knows that when HHH emulates the machine 
language of, Infinite_Recursion it must abort this emulation so that 
itself can terminate normally. When this is construed as non-halting 
criteria then simulating termination analyzer HHH is correct to reject 
this input as non-halting by returning 0 to its caller. We get the same 
repetitive pattern when DDD is correctly emulated by HHH.

But that ISN'T the criteria of "non-halting", and HHH doesn't get "the 
same repetirive pattern when DDD is correctly emulated by HHH" as the 
call to HHH(DDD) by DDD is not equivalent to the call to 
Infinite_Recursion() by Infinite_Recursion.

The key difference is that HHH has CONDITIONALS in it that *WILL* stop 
the emulation (since that is what the code of HHH says to do).

Sorry, you are just proving that you are nothing but a bald face liar 
that doesn't know what he is talking about.