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: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 19:16:44 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <3570d58cf5fea3a0a8ac8724b653d1596447d0d1@i2pn2.org> <3db3ceb1eac447b89c8c740dbba31774eeb1ad99@i2pn2.org> <9a91d75b6beb959665d2a042677ef61f444608a5@i2pn2.org> <525ed75662589a150afa1ea268b199a166a7b98b@i2pn2.org> <13583474d25855e665daa98d91605e958f5cf472@i2pn2.org> <45ea7a6da46453c9da62c1149fa1cf7739218c5f@i2pn2.org> <2a210ab064b3a8c3397600b4fe87aa390868bb12@i2pn2.org> <4c67570b4898e14665bde2dfdf473130b89b7dd4@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 23:16:44 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3387963"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Bytes: 13312 Lines: 285 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 uses assembly >>>>>> to extract the address that it is running at, making that address >>>>>> a "hidden input" to the code. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, you just proved that you never meet your basic requirements, >>>>>> and everything is just a lie. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (c) DDD emulated by HHH has different behavior than >>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH1. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, just less of it because HHH aborts its emulation. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========