Path: ...!news.mixmin.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: Verified facts regarding the software engineering of DDD, HHH, and
 HHH1
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 10:57:36 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 111
Message-ID: <vf8i1g$1h5mj$4@dont-email.me>
References: <vf3eu5$fbb3$2@dont-email.me>
 <6fa1774ec1e4b13035be3eab85555b609b301d69@i2pn2.org>
 <vf3os0$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 17:57:37 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0250fa4f333a237bb4a9bec06e6bd0e6";
	logging-data="1611475"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+tKJM0EtEg6nI26+0Pvoh5"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jiU8qboZ56s0GNU0Ul92v2DHEJY=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241022-2, 10/22/2024), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <13583474d25855e665daa98d91605e958f5cf472@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6698

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.

(b) HHH and HHH1 have verbatim identical c source
code, except for their differing names.

(c) DDD emulated by HHH has different behavior than
DDD emulated by HHH1.

(d) Each DDD *correctly_emulated_by* any HHH that
this DDD calls cannot possibly return no matter
what this HHH does.




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