Re: Verified facts regarding the software engineering of DDD, HHH, and HHH1 --- TYPO

On 10/25/24 9:56 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/25/2024 7:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/24/24 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/24/2024 6:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/24/24 9:36 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/23/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/23/24 9:51 PM, olcott wrote:

ChatGPT does completely understand this.
>

>
But, it is just a stupid idiot that has been taught to repeat what it has been told.
>

>
It is a brilliant genius that seems to infallibly deduce all
of the subtle nuances of each of the consequences on the basis
of a set of premises.

>
I guess you don't undetstand how "Large Language Models work, do you.
>
It has NO actual intelegence, or ability to "deduce" nuances, it is just a massive pattern matching system.
>
All you are doing is proving how little you understand about what you are talking about,
>
Remember, at the bottom of the page is a WARNING that it can make mistakes. And feeding it LIES, like you do is one easy way to do that.
>

>
There is much more to this than your superficial
understanding.  Here is a glimpse:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/03/04/1089403/large-language- models-amazing-but-nobody-knows-why/
>
The bottom line is that ChatGPT made no error in its
evaluation of my work when this evaluation is based on
pure reasoning. It is only when my work is measured
against arbitrary dogma that cannot be justified with
pure reasoning that makes me and ChatGPT seem incorrect.
>
If use your same approach to these things we could say that
ZFC stupidly fails to have a glimmering of understanding of
Naive set theory. From your perspective ZFC is a damned liar.
>

>
The articles says no such thing.
>

 *large-language-models-amazing-but-nobody-knows-why*
They are much smarter and can figure out all kinds of
things. Their original designers have no idea how they
do this.
 

In fact, it comments about the problem of "overfitting" where the processing get the wrong answers because it over generalizes.
>
This is because the modeling process has no concept of actual meaning, and thus of truth, only the patterns that it has seen.
>
AI's don't "Reason", they patern match and compare.
>
Note, that "arbitrary dogma" that you try to reject, are the RULES and DEFINITONS of the system that you claim to be working in.
>

 How about we stipulate that the system that I am
working in is termination analysis for the x86 language.
as my system software says in its own name: x86utm.

But it doesn;t actually know
Just came accross an interesting parody about LLMs, showing there issues
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbfii4wz2ys&ab_channel=HonestAds
It seems you are just one of those taken in by it.

 

By your logic, Trump was right that he won, because he was saying we need to ignore the "dogma" of the truth and rules about voting, but instead use the fact that he got more votes than anyone else prior. That is the "proof" that he must have won, and the fact that Biden got more than him is just a misuse of "dogma".
>
Sorry, you are just proving how utterly STUPID and IGNORANT you are, and that you logic has absolutely ZERO basis.
>
Your new dependence of Chat GPT just shows your stupidity,

 I have no need to depend on ChatGPT, yet ChatGPT does correctly
make every rebuttal of my work look ridiculously foolish.

No, you have NOTHING without your references to Chat GPT, because all your previous claims have been disproven.

 Because of its preexisting knowledge of software development
it can even verify that the basis that it was given is a correct
basis.  What you call are lies are commonly known verified facts.

Nope, they are just lies.

 https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/385090708_ChatGPT_Analyzes_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer
 

And you said you didn't need to depend on Chat GPT, and then you just write a paper that its whole point is that Chat GPT agrees with you after you give it the false definitions.
Your statement is in error when you said:
Every C programmer that knows that when HHH emulates the machine language of, Infinite_Recursion it must abort this emulation so that itself can terminate normally. When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating termination analyzer HHH is correct to reject this input as non-halting by returning 0 to its caller. We get the same repetitive pattern when DDD is correctly emulated by HHH.
But that ISN'T the criteria of "non-halting", and HHH doesn't get "the same repetirive pattern when DDD is correctly emulated by HHH" as the call to HHH(DDD) by DDD is not equivalent to the call to Infinite_Recursion() by Infinite_Recursion.
The key difference is that HHH has CONDITIONALS in it that *WILL* stop the emulation (since that is what the code of HHH says to do).
Sorry, you are just proving that you are nothing but a bald face liar that doesn't know what he is talking about.