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: Even Google AI Overview understands me now --- different
 execution traces have different behavior !!!
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 07:16:56 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <8b646269ba7736c125f0b05a1d764d73540f16e0@i2pn2.org>
References: <vdgpbs$2nmcm$1@dont-email.me> <vdgqhn$2nmcm$2@dont-email.me>
 <7c6cede5237e3eafee262c74dd1a1c90c6b2ffbb@i2pn2.org>
 <vdhblt$2qm1j$2@dont-email.me>
 <cafee8d7a14edd7b1d76bb706c36eef06ae82896@i2pn2.org>
 <vdi0f8$2u1aq$1@dont-email.me>
 <53a60609211a04a123adafa525bac39b5cbc6959@i2pn2.org>
 <vdjlum$38t86$4@dont-email.me>
 <bf681f4404a7df8e3ffc2059dcd7c5c302aeeff1@i2pn2.org>
 <vdkud3$3ipp4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 11:16:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="378588"; 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: <vdkud3$3ipp4$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8217
Lines: 172

On 10/2/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/2/2024 5:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/2/24 10:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/2/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/1/24 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/1/2024 12:58 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Tue, 01 Oct 2024 12:31:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 10/1/2024 8:09 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ### 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:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *You can continue this conversation with ChatGPT*
>>>>>> I’ll leave that to you.
>>>>>>> Click on the link and see how it answers this question:
>>>>>>> Is H a Halt Decider for D?
>>>>>> You should feed it our objections.
>>>>>> If you believe in it only when you prompt it, it is not suited as an
>>>>>> authority (fallacious anyway).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You feed it your objections.
>>>>> It will tell you how and why you are wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it will tell you something that matches the words you told it.
>>>>
>>>> You don't seem to understand what Large Language Models are.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You seem to forget that LLM know nothing of the "truth", only what 
>>>> matches their training data.
>>>>
>>>> They are know to be liars, just like you.
>>>
>>> In the case of their evaluation of my work they are correct.
>>>
>>> *Try this yourself*
>>>
>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/66fbec5c-7b10-8011-9ce6-3c26424cb21c
>>>
>>> Does HHH have to abort its emulation of DDD to prevent the infinite 
>>> execution of DDD?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Try asking it
>>
>> Why is it ok for HHH to say that DDD doesn't halt when it will when run?
>>
> 
> You guys try to pretend that the pathological relationship between
> HHH and DDD does not make any difference to the behavior of DDD
> knowing full well that it does make a difference.
> 
> When two execution traces differ and one expects the same behavior
> this is the same as analogous to the insanity of doing the exact
> same thing and expecting different results. It is merely the other
> side. Doing an entirely different thing and expecting the same
> results is also quite crazy.
> 

No, YOU don't seem to understand that the while the pathological 
relationship DOES affect the behavior of DDD, it doesn't mean that the 
"correct simulation" of DDD (by anybody) will differ from the actual 
behavior of DDD.

What it does mean is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for HHH to do such a "correct 
simulation", so the fact that you try to reframe the results that HHH 
gives to be based on such a correct simulation that it does itself, 
makes your "logic" just illogical and broken.

It just affirms your poaition that LYING is just an ok thing to do.

YOU are the one that is "insain".

It has been proven (and then ignored by you) that the actual correct 
simulation of DDD, and the trace generated by HHH, up to the point that 
it aborts its simulation, is IDENTICAL, and thus the claim that they 
differ is just a LIE.

You must know this, or you are just admitting that you are totally 
mentally incompetent to understand what you are doing.

Sorry, but the big conclusion that we can come up with is:

PPPP   EEEEE  TTTTT  EEEEE  RRRR
P   P  E        T    E      R   R
P   P  E        T    E      R   R
PPPP   EEEEE    T    EEEEE  RRRR
P      E        T    E      R R
P      E        T    E      R  R
P      EEEEE    T    EEEEE  R   R


  OOO   L       CCC    OOO   TTTTT  TTTTT
O   O  L      C   C  O   O    T      T
O   O  L      C      O   O    T      T
O   O  L      C      O   O    T      T
O   O  L      C      O   O    T      T
O   O  L      C   C  O   O    T      T
  OOO   LLLLL   CCC    OOO     T      T


L     IIIII  EEEEE   SSS
L       I    E      S   S
L       I    E      S
L       I    EEEEE   SSS
L       I    E          S
L       I    E      S   S
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========