Path: ...!news.misty.com!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
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 23:47:59 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <2a210ab064b3a8c3397600b4fe87aa390868bb12@i2pn2.org>
References: <vf3eu5$fbb3$2@dont-email.me>
 <6fa1774ec1e4b13035be3eab85555b609b301d69@i2pn2.org>
 <vf3os0$hqgf$1@dont-email.me>
 <de0c3b304ab574b45594ec05085c193fd687f9f7@i2pn2.org>
 <vf40l9$ja0c$3@dont-email.me>
 <3570d58cf5fea3a0a8ac8724b653d1596447d0d1@i2pn2.org>
 <vf5lln$v6n5$2@dont-email.me>
 <a9302e42f51777b34f4a7c695247ea98f0f060ad@i2pn2.org>
 <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 03:48:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3267336"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vf9qai$1scol$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 9445
Lines: 180

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.
>>
>>
>> Note, your argument is using a equivocation on the term "correctly 
>> emulated" as you are trying to claim a correct emulation by just a 
>> partial emulation, but also trying to claim a result that only comes 
>> from COMPLETE emulation, that of determining final behavior.
>>
>> This again, just prove that you whole proof is based on lies.
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========