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 18:18:21 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 322
Message-ID: <vfh8vt$3cdsr$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vf3eu5$fbb3$2@dont-email.me> <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>
 <vfg6us$36im7$2@dont-email.me>
 <da2d4f48cb3b9ac2e44b6f9c9ab28adb3022acb1@i2pn2.org>
 <vfh428$3bkkv$2@dont-email.me>
 <c72aa667027121011042e8b4413d343f3c61bdd1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:18:22 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f00999e9e0e5447cf99e873d021c7ec9";
	logging-data="3553179"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX192KBfOXs6q4eFs7j5r6KlC"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0v6epn9yG26aFv42RNQL/eWta0g=
In-Reply-To: <c72aa667027121011042e8b4413d343f3c61bdd1@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241025-4, 10/25/2024), Outbound message
Bytes: 17513

On 10/25/2024 5:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/25/24 5:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/25/2024 10:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/25/24 9:37 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========