Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.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 20:51:21 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 251
Message-ID: <vfc96p$2b6h0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vf3eu5$fbb3$2@dont-email.me> <vf40l9$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>
 <vfaqe7$21k64$1@dont-email.me>
 <f789d3ef27e3000f04feb3df4fc561c5da02381f@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 03:51:22 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cdc93c27f7b70ee2ca5bf91b23fec445";
	logging-data="2464288"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+UuzisTjN54Ozmmw1kEJnT"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pnsyZguWdSIyyAF9hYPV6mr7T5E=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241023-12, 10/23/2024), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <f789d3ef27e3000f04feb3df4fc561c5da02381f@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 12475

On 10/23/2024 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/23/24 8:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========