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: Verified facts regarding the software engineering of DDD, HHH, and
 HHH1 ---
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2024 08:47:11 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 346
Message-ID: <vfirsv$3ner2$6@dont-email.me>
References: <vf3eu5$fbb3$2@dont-email.me> <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>
 <vfh8vt$3cdsr$2@dont-email.me>
 <8e17863681e1f32f132966f41699e57e5c322b41@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 15:47:12 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f00999e9e0e5447cf99e873d021c7ec9";
	logging-data="3914594"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/CI5TbFNtEZxeXiqNSiB6b"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9Jk5W5M8o9oSPSSbtyomWmynDXY=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <8e17863681e1f32f132966f41699e57e5c322b41@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241026-2, 10/26/2024), Outbound message
Bytes: 18886

On 10/25/2024 11:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/25/24 7:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========