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 --- TYPO
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 19:23:49 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <94449dae60f42358ae29bb710ca9bc3b18c60ad7@i2pn2.org>
References: <vf3eu5$fbb3$2@dont-email.me> <vf5lln$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>
 <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 23:23:49 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3525407"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vfe344$2o992$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 14517
Lines: 292

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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (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.
>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========