Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!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 17:58:34 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <cafee8d7a14edd7b1d76bb706c36eef06ae82896@i2pn2.org>
References: <vdgpbs$2nmcm$1@dont-email.me> <vdgqhn$2nmcm$2@dont-email.me>
	<7c6cede5237e3eafee262c74dd1a1c90c6b2ffbb@i2pn2.org>
	<vdhblt$2qm1j$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 17:58:34 -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

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).

-- 
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.