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: Sat, 26 Oct 2024 00:07:20 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <8e17863681e1f32f132966f41699e57e5c322b41@i2pn2.org>
References: <vf3eu5$fbb3$2@dont-email.me> <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>
 <0553e6ab73fa9a21f062de4d645549ae48fd0a64@i2pn2.org>
 <vfg6us$36im7$2@dont-email.me>
 <da2d4f48cb3b9ac2e44b6f9c9ab28adb3022acb1@i2pn2.org>
 <vfh428$3bkkv$2@dont-email.me>
 <c72aa667027121011042e8b4413d343f3c61bdd1@i2pn2.org>
 <vfh8vt$3cdsr$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2024 04:07:20 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3696722"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vfh8vt$3cdsr$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 19132
Lines: 350

On 10/25/24 7:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/25/2024 5:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/25/24 5:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/25/2024 10:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/25/24 9:37 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/25/2024 7:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========