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: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 18:17:28 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: 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: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 22:17:29 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3665457"; 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: 16844 Lines: 316 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code, except for their differing names. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========