Path: ...!news.misty.com!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 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 23:47:59 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <2a210ab064b3a8c3397600b4fe87aa390868bb12@i2pn2.org> References: <6fa1774ec1e4b13035be3eab85555b609b301d69@i2pn2.org> <3570d58cf5fea3a0a8ac8724b653d1596447d0d1@i2pn2.org> <3db3ceb1eac447b89c8c740dbba31774eeb1ad99@i2pn2.org> <9a91d75b6beb959665d2a042677ef61f444608a5@i2pn2.org> <525ed75662589a150afa1ea268b199a166a7b98b@i2pn2.org> <13583474d25855e665daa98d91605e958f5cf472@i2pn2.org> <45ea7a6da46453c9da62c1149fa1cf7739218c5f@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 03:48:00 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3267336"; 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: 9445 Lines: 180 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. >> >> Aborted emulation doesn't provide final behavior. >> >>> >>> (d) Each DDD *correctly_emulated_by* any HHH that >>> this DDD calls cannot possibly return no matter >>> what this HHH does. >>> >> >> No, it can not be emulated by that HHH to that point, but that doesn't >> mean that the behavior of program DDD doesn't get there. >> >> Halt Deciding / Termination Analysis is about the behavior of the >> program described, and thus all you are showing is that you aren't >> working on either of those problems, but have just been lying. >> >> >> Note, your argument is using a equivocation on the term "correctly >> emulated" as you are trying to claim a correct emulation by just a >> partial emulation, but also trying to claim a result that only comes >> from COMPLETE emulation, that of determining final behavior. >> >> This again, just prove that you whole proof is based on lies. > ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========