Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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: Verified facts regarding the software engineering of DDD, HHH,
 and HHH1 --- TYPO
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 23:04:22 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 191
Message-ID: <vf9sk6$1sfva$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vf3eu5$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>
 <vf8i1g$1h5mj$4@dont-email.me>
 <45ea7a6da46453c9da62c1149fa1cf7739218c5f@i2pn2.org>
 <vf9qai$1scol$1@dont-email.me>
 <2a210ab064b3a8c3397600b4fe87aa390868bb12@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 06:04:23 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="766a907a9bb0f5f92f439e6d0440e983";
	logging-data="1982442"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19hyBixWALbrHPde/WMdEcm"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mfcS/pmBy7ilU0orhUI6jc1GVlQ=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241022-6, 10/22/2024), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <2a210ab064b3a8c3397600b4fe87aa390868bb12@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9993

On 10/22/2024 10:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/22/24 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/22/2024 10:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/22/24 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> But HHH only does so INCOMPLETELY.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> (b) HHH and HHH1 have verbatim identical c source
>>>> code, except for their differing names.
>>>
>>> So? the fact the give different results just proves that they must 
>>> have a "hidden input" thta gives them that different behavior, so 
>>> they can't be actually deciders.
>>>
>>> HHH1 either references itself with the name HHH1, instead of the name 
>>> HHH, so has DIFFERENT source code, or your code uses assembly to 
>>> extract the address that it is running at, making that address a 
>>> "hidden input" to the code.
>>>
>>> So, you just proved that you never meet your basic requirements, and 
>>> everything is just a lie.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> (c) DDD emulated by HHH has different behavior than
>>>> DDD emulated by HHH1.
>>>
>>> No, just less of it because HHH aborts its emulation.
>>>
>>> Aborted emulation doesn't provide final behavior.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> (d) Each DDD *correctly_emulated_by* any HHH that
>>>> this DDD calls cannot possibly return no matter
>>>> what this HHH does.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, it can not be emulated by that HHH to that point, but that 
>>> doesn't mean that the behavior of program DDD doesn't get there.
>>>
>>> Halt Deciding / Termination Analysis is about the behavior of the 
>>> program described, and thus all you are showing is that you aren't 
>>> working on either of those problems, but have just been lying.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========