Re: Premises cannot be shown to be false without proving that they contradict each other

On 22/10/2024 16:18, 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?
 

DDD halts.  HHH says DDD doesn't halt.  HHH1 says DDD halts.  HHH is wrong, just as you say.
PO is totally confused about what his program does and why, so he invents all sorts of magical explanations for what happens, like "pathelogical self reference changes simulation behaviour" or whatever.  I have tried in the past to explain VERY CAREFULLY to PO why his "exact copy" behaves differently from the source of the copy, but it just washes over his head, and he carries on spouting the same garbage a few days later.  Bottom line: he just doesn't understand his own code.
He claimed H1 was an exact copy of H and produced a different result (blamed on PSR) but it turns out... IT WASN'T AN EXACT COPY.  H and H1 test addresses in the global trace entries against the addresses of H and H1 respectively, so they are not identical after all.  No surprise they give different results for the same input D - nothing mysterious here!
He claimed HHH1 was an exact copy of HHH and produced a different result (blamed on PSR) but it turns out... IT WASN'T AN EXACT COPY. HHH and HHH1 contain /their own/ *local static* variable (execution_trace) to communicate between their nested simulations.  (This is what is tested to set Root differently for the outer simulation...)  The result is that HHH1 is effectively isolated from all simulations of DDD, because DDD is using HHH's execution_trace rather than HHH1's.  So HHH1 is effectively a UTM with no abort logic, and sees the full DDD simulation.  Long and short of it: HHH/HHH1 implement different logic and are NOT copies, so no surprise they give different results for the same input - nothing mysterious here!
PO doesn't half talk some bollocks about his own code! :)
I see in a reply to you he claims:
   ..
   (b) HHH and HHH1 have verbatim identical c source
       code, except for their differing names.
   (c) DDD emulated by HHH has different behavior than
       DDD emulated by HHH1.
Well, the criterion for a copy is whether the algorithm described by the code is exactly the original algorithm, NOT simply whether the C code is identical.  By putting his naff local static execution_trace variable in HHH/HHH1 which is shared between DDD [which calls HHH] and HHH, but not between DDD and HHH1, he makes the /logic/ of HHH/HHH1 different.  I think he knows that because he is deliberately trying to mislead you in his carefully wording focus on the "C" code being the same.
Well, if PO had done his coding properly in the first place and stuck to the obvious restrictions like "no mutable static data" and so on, then simply copying the C code /would/ be enough to create a proper copy.  PO doesn't understand any of that...
Here is a link to my original post where I pointed all this out to PO a few months ago:
   msgid:    <0amdndFJSZSzYD77nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
   subject:  Re: This function proves that only the outermost HHH examines the execution trace
   date:     Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:46:52 +0100
Of course, once his code is corrected so H1, HHH1 are proper copies of H, HHH respectively, the simulation behaviour is EXACTLY the same.  (I've verified that whilst playing with the code, although it was not in any doubt.)
Mike.