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: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 13:19:46 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 269
Message-ID: <vfe344$2o992$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vf3eu5$fbb3$2@dont-email.me> <vf5lln$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>
 <vfcbl5$2b6h0$2@dont-email.me>
 <b707850664ad22bb1172006f4e24a27633ff1a4d@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 20:19:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cdc93c27f7b70ee2ca5bf91b23fec445";
	logging-data="2893090"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19vtEJJmQGu96zRGZD+1InL"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4pKrCT2QwQY4tpYp2BNk7HwWloI=
In-Reply-To: <b707850664ad22bb1172006f4e24a27633ff1a4d@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241024-12, 10/24/2024), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 13584

On 10/23/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/23/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========