Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Even Google AI Overview understands me now
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2024 13:09:26 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <7c6cede5237e3eafee262c74dd1a1c90c6b2ffbb@i2pn2.org>
References: <vdgpbs$2nmcm$1@dont-email.me> <vdgqhn$2nmcm$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2024 13:09:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="66881"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4068
Lines: 65

Am Tue, 01 Oct 2024 07:39:18 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 10/1/2024 7:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>> https://www.google.com/search?
>> 
q=Termination+Analyzer+H+is+Not+Fooled+by+Pathological+Input+D&sca_esv=889093c5cb21af9e&sca_upv=1&source=hp&ei=Muf7ZpOyMZHfwN4PwYL2gAc&iflsig=AL9hbdgAAAAAZvv1Qg04jNg2ze170z3a8BSGu8pA29Fj&ved=0ahUKEwiTk7zkk-2IAxWRL9AFHUGBHXAQ4dUDCBg&uact=5&oq=Termination+Analyzer+H+is+Not+Fooled+by+Pathological+Input+D&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IjxUZXJtaW5hdGlvbiBBbmFseXplciBIIGlzIE5vdCBGb29sZWQgYnkgUGF0aG9sb2dpY2FsIElucHV0IERIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-
AEC-AEBmAIAoAIAmAMAkgcAoAcA&sclient=gws-wiz
> https://chatgpt.com/share/66fbec5c-7b10-8011-9ce6-3c26424cb21c
It sounds like it’s trained on your spam. LLMs don’t know anything anyway.

I asked: „What happens when HHH tries to simulate itself?”
ChatGPT: [my comments in brackets]
When `HHH` tries to simulate itself, it encounters a potential problem 
known as **self-referential recursion**. Here’s a breakdown of what 
happens:

### 1. **Self-Invocation in HHH**
If `HHH` calls itself (i.e., `HHH(HHH)`), it creates an infinite loop of 
calls unless there is some form of termination condition built into `HHH`. 
Without such a condition, `HHH` would never return, resulting in non-
termination.

[So not a decider.]

### 2. **Halting Criteria**
In a well-designed termination analyzer, `HHH` would need to have specific 
logic to prevent endless recursion:
- **Base Case or Exit Condition**: There should be a mechanism to 
recognize when `HHH` is being asked to analyze itself and return 
immediately (e.g., a special case or flag).
- **Tracking State**: The analyzer might maintain a history of function 
calls to detect cycles. If it recognizes that it is attempting to analyze 
itself again, it can decide that this leads to non-termination.

[Not present.]

### 3. **Practical Consequences**
If `HHH` lacks the ability to handle self-referential calls correctly:
- **Stack Overflow**: Continuous self-invocation will eventually exhaust 
the stack memory, leading to a stack overflow error.
[Not considered in theory.]
- **Incorrect Results**: If not designed carefully, it may lead to an 
incorrect conclusion about halting, misrepresenting itself as either 
halting or non-halting.


### 4. **Best Practices for Termination Analyzers**
To avoid these pitfalls, a termination analyzer should implement:
- **Guard Clauses**: Checks at the beginning of the function to prevent 
unnecessary self-simulation.
- **State Management**: A way to track the functions being analyzed, 
allowing `HHH` to recognize if it's being invoked with itself and act 
accordingly.

### Conclusion
In summary, if `HHH` tries to simulate itself without proper safeguards, 
it risks falling into an infinite recursion or causing a stack overflow. A 
robust design would include checks to prevent self-invocation, ensuring 
the termination analyzer can handle all cases, including its own function, 
gracefully.


There you go.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.