Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!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: Sat, 26 Oct 2024 00:07:20 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <8e17863681e1f32f132966f41699e57e5c322b41@i2pn2.org> References: <525ed75662589a150afa1ea268b199a166a7b98b@i2pn2.org> <13583474d25855e665daa98d91605e958f5cf472@i2pn2.org> <45ea7a6da46453c9da62c1149fa1cf7739218c5f@i2pn2.org> <2a210ab064b3a8c3397600b4fe87aa390868bb12@i2pn2.org> <4c67570b4898e14665bde2dfdf473130b89b7dd4@i2pn2.org> <94449dae60f42358ae29bb710ca9bc3b18c60ad7@i2pn2.org> <0553e6ab73fa9a21f062de4d645549ae48fd0a64@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 04:07:20 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3696722"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 19132 Lines: 350 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But HHH only does so INCOMPLETELY. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========