Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.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: Verified facts regarding the software engineering of DDD, HHH,
 and HHH1 --- TYPO
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 07:33:09 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 262
Message-ID: <vfaqe7$21k64$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vf3eu5$fbb3$2@dont-email.me> <vf3os0$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>
 <vf9sk6$1sfva$2@dont-email.me>
 <4c67570b4898e14665bde2dfdf473130b89b7dd4@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 14:33:11 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="766a907a9bb0f5f92f439e6d0440e983";
	logging-data="2150596"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ZhCd59CbA62BYx5w4qY9n"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Q7GortAM0iXJoJ8Svt2rdaTvCVg=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241023-2, 10/23/2024), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <4c67570b4898e14665bde2dfdf473130b89b7dd4@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 12433

On 10/23/2024 6:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/23/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========