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: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 08:37:32 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 291
Message-ID: <vfg6us$36im7$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vf3eu5$fbb3$2@dont-email.me> <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>
 <vfe344$2o992$1@dont-email.me>
 <94449dae60f42358ae29bb710ca9bc3b18c60ad7@i2pn2.org>
 <vfeqqo$2ruhp$1@dont-email.me>
 <0553e6ab73fa9a21f062de4d645549ae48fd0a64@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 15:37:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7cff08f8c76bdb8ebdc0a44831f3107c";
	logging-data="3361479"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+HFM0sovaP8cMWgS3Q7+x3"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GV7vYvi2ZmDntlXQHMs2U7eAMb4=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241025-2, 10/25/2024), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <0553e6ab73fa9a21f062de4d645549ae48fd0a64@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 15515

On 10/25/2024 7:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/24/24 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/24/2024 6:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/24/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========