Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Verified facts regarding the software engineering of DDD, HHH, and HHH1 --- TYPO Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 08:27:35 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <0553e6ab73fa9a21f062de4d645549ae48fd0a64@i2pn2.org> References: <3db3ceb1eac447b89c8c740dbba31774eeb1ad99@i2pn2.org> <9a91d75b6beb959665d2a042677ef61f444608a5@i2pn2.org> <525ed75662589a150afa1ea268b199a166a7b98b@i2pn2.org> <13583474d25855e665daa98d91605e958f5cf472@i2pn2.org> <45ea7a6da46453c9da62c1149fa1cf7739218c5f@i2pn2.org> <2a210ab064b3a8c3397600b4fe87aa390868bb12@i2pn2.org> <4c67570b4898e14665bde2dfdf473130b89b7dd4@i2pn2.org> <94449dae60f42358ae29bb710ca9bc3b18c60ad7@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 12:27:36 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3598113"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 16206 Lines: 306 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 of >>>>>>>>>>>> the name HHH, so has DIFFERENT source code, or your code ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========