Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!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: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 11:01:02 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 162
Message-ID: <ve04fu$1l09u$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> <vdm1tl$3npme$1@dont-email.me> <vdn0nv$3sa9k$1@dont-email.me> <vdob4p$5sfp$1@dont-email.me> <vdovie$8eot$1@dont-email.me> <vdqsrj$mmcu$1@dont-email.me> <vdrafr$oita$1@dont-email.me> <vdtp6o$1710i$1@dont-email.me> <vdu0en$17ult$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2024 10:01:03 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="98b5ba9a887bc09d4de7a39265cb1a00";
	logging-data="1737022"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+nHIglM1fUsUmRLi6SvdSZ"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6VyCrb8konw2GYwmUae7uKDwReY=
Bytes: 9285

On 2024-10-06 12:39:51 +0000, olcott said:

> On 10/6/2024 5:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-10-05 12:12:43 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 10/5/2024 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-10-04 14:54:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 10/4/2024 4:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-10-03 21:01:51 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 10/3/2024 7:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The behavior of the directly executed DDD is essentially the
>>>>>>> behavior of what would otherwise be infinite recursion except
>>>>>>> that the second recursive call has already been aborted.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This is not the same as the behavior of DDD correctly emulated
>>>>>>> by the same emulator that it calls where HHH cannot rely on DDD
>>>>>>> being aborted by any other process than itself.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So the behaviour of DDD "correctly" emulated is not the behaviour
>>>>>> of DDD.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Directly executed DDD can rely on having its second invocation
>>>>> aborted by HHH is different behavior than DDD emulated by HHH
>>>>> according to the behavior specified by x86 the machine code of
>>>>> DDD and HHH where HHH cannot rely on DDD having already been
>>>>> aborted by anything else.
>>>> 
>>>> DDD does not "rely" on anything. It simply is a specification of
>>>> a behaviour.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> When DDD is executed before HHH its behavior its different
>>> than when DDD is emulated by HHH. This is easy to see by
>>> anyone that is not totally clueless about the x86 language.
>> 
>> The former is the behaviour of DDD. The latter is someting else though
>> similar to some extent. That something and someting else are different
>> is no news.
> 
> DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
> exist never returns. Each of these HHH emulators that does
> return 0 correctly reports the above non-halting behavior.

Nice to see that you don't disagree.

-- 
Mikko