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: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 19:16:44 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f789d3ef27e3000f04feb3df4fc561c5da02381f@i2pn2.org>
References: <vf3eu5$fbb3$2@dont-email.me> <vf3os0$hqgf$1@dont-email.me>
 <de0c3b304ab574b45594ec05085c193fd687f9f7@i2pn2.org>
 <vf40l9$ja0c$3@dont-email.me>
 <3570d58cf5fea3a0a8ac8724b653d1596447d0d1@i2pn2.org>
 <vf5lln$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 23:16:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3387963"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vfaqe7$21k64$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 13312
Lines: 285

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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you just proved that you never meet your basic requirements, 
>>>>>> and everything is just a lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (c) DDD emulated by HHH has different behavior than
>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, just less of it because HHH aborts its emulation.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========