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 22:48:05 -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: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 02:48:05 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3404111"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 13698 Lines: 281 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 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. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========