Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Even Google AI Overview understands me now --- different
 execution traces have different behavior !!!
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 17:46:42 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 136
Message-ID: <vdn6sj$3thq0$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>
 <8b646269ba7736c125f0b05a1d764d73540f16e0@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2024 00:46:43 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2cfea8cf782cc6fdb9f312c205ffbe28";
	logging-data="4114240"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/N7p5H+Uw/+wPlvQai1r59"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:q6xOsDFyHrQ1wzN97A1jPQ20JSo=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <8b646269ba7736c125f0b05a1d764d73540f16e0@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 7376

On 10/3/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/2/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> When two execution traces differ and one expects the same behavior
>> this is the same as analogous to the insanity of doing the exact
>> same thing and expecting different results. It is merely the other
>> side. Doing an entirely different thing and expecting the same
>> results is also quite crazy.
>>
> 
> No, YOU don't seem to understand that the while the pathological 
> relationship DOES affect the behavior of DDD, it doesn't mean that the 
> "correct simulation" of DDD (by anybody) will differ from the actual 
> behavior of DDD.
> 

If the emulator ignores rather than emulates this
pathological relationship when the x86 code specifies
this pathological relationship then it is the same
kind of damned liar that you are.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer