Path: ...!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 21:48:03 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 157
Message-ID: <vdnl13$3089$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>
 <vdn6sj$3thq0$1@dont-email.me>
 <1263d37668d0fd03df0ab5f9617387ca66ba4f0e@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 04:48:04 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2cfea8cf782cc6fdb9f312c205ffbe28";
	logging-data="98569"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19+mxfM85O8uVhQwdxflPco"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0NF5Myk551dG3Ell1zFukE6L0ZA=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1263d37668d0fd03df0ab5f9617387ca66ba4f0e@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 8181

On 10/3/2024 8:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/3/24 6:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> 
> So, what did it actually EMULATE that differed?
> 

The directly executed DDD() depends on HHH aborting what
would otherwise be its own infinite recursive emulation.

Mike is the only one smart enough to understand these things
and he refuses to, providing double-talk instead of reasoning.



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