Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Even Google AI Overview understands me now --- different execution traces have different behavior !!!
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 15:15:49 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 113
Message-ID: <vdm1tl$3npme$1@dont-email.me>
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, 03 Oct 2024 14:15:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="aa2efb355dd975f9a7307d0a68944697";
	logging-data="3925710"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19QqoSg5sTxtcLpvVKf/TLH"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GWY/czijCOLlyFkuyX/ClNkIkGg=
Bytes: 6181

On 2024-10-03 02:09:39 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

The behaviour of DDD is what DDD does if executed. As DDD takes no input
its behavour is always the same. What does "make a difference" mean
in this context?

-- 
Mikko