quentron.com

[lumen]

ROFL...

You know lumen I constantly have to remind myself that I'm talking to just one engineer who's a moron.  Otherwise I might start thinking that this is how most engineers think.

So back to your post.  According to you, a what was it? 30 year veteran of engineering it is impossible to state that something can not work without understanding the mechanism involved.   I realize it's kind of your think to post and then run away for a while to soothe your ego or whatever but if you wouldn't mind just posting back and saying simply if this is your position.  I'd appreciate it.

No, you can state anything you want about something you don't understand.
It just makes you look stupid.

Well, I just have to run, I have some real world projects to work on.(and of course I must restrain my ego because otherwise, I might seem to be overly obnoxious)

[sarkeizen]

No, you can state anything you want about something you don't understand.

I guess you need more help than I thought *sigh* good thing there are probably some adequate engineers helping you with your real world tasks.   The question that was being asked was:

"Are you saying it is impossible to *correctly and deterministically* state that something can not work without understanding *all* or the *majority* of the mechanism involved?"

Again I know you're off to jerk off now but before you do I'd appreciate it if you could just answer the ACTUAL question I asked.  You know, as a favor.

[lumen]

I guess you need more help than I thought *sigh* good thing there are probably some adequate engineers helping you with your real world tasks.   The question that was being asked was:

"Are you saying it is impossible to *correctly and deterministically* state that something can not work without understanding *all* or the *majority* of the mechanism involved?"

Again I know you're off to jerk off now but before you do I'd appreciate it if you could just answer the ACTUAL question I asked.  You know, as a favor.

I'm thinking the insults must increase your IQ right?

I did answer the exact question you asked, but if you need an answer for the next question.

I'm not saying it's impossible, because you could even guess which hand the blue pill is in, that you severely need!

I am saying that if you do not understand the principal of operation, then you could only predict a probability of failure but can never rule out a success.

Now, Elisha's experiment, no matter how crude, only serves to reinforce the fact that it works, but EVERYTHING you say can do nothing to disprove the test results. Your words are not a test and have no real value especially now that you admit you do not understand the theory of operation.

So either go do some tests and prove it does not work, or dig up some better insults to increase your intelligence!

[ramset]

Sometimes very bright Folks can get "putzy"!
and sometimes "Putz's" can do very "brite" things!

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/08/ddwfttw/

Thx
Chet

[sarkeizen]

I did answer the exact question you asked, but if you need an answer for the next question.

Nope.  It seems it's time to teach a little lesson for a 30 year veteran of engineering.  1st year math time.

I am saying that if you do not understand the principal of operation, then you could only predict a probability of failure but can never rule out a success.

So a) No you didn't answer my original question.  If something can be *deterministically* correct then you *can* rule something out.  This is a pretty fundamental term in computer science.  Even in philosophy the term maintains the gist of what is meant in CS: The belief that results are pre-ordained.  This is, in case you haven't guessed the opposite of "predicting a probability".   How long did you say you were a programmer for again?  Was it just writing code to see when the fries are done?

Now b) You're also wrong in a pretty amusing way.  According to you a proof of Turing's "halting problem" is insufficient (actually if you think about your statement - which you haven't you'll see that what you're actually arguing is that Turing's proof is meaningless).  Instead you claim you actually ABSOLUTELY MUST know how the program works (in every aspect) in order to rule out that it doesn't.  Even when there is a mathematical proof that no such program can exist.

Anyway now that I've schooled the 30 year veteran of engineering who also claims to have been a programmer for 30 years.  What's the lesson?  It's alright to be vague and pretend you've got some hidden wisdom but you should at least have a fundamental grasp of the terms you're using.

Now, Elisha's experiment, no matter how crude, only serves to reinforce the fact that it works

Depends.  If you mean "makes people believe in something more, even if it's a silly thing to believe" then that would be an appropriate use of the English term "reinforce" however if you mean "increases the probability that Philip is correct about...something...say that the experiment violates 2LOT" and if as one may reasonably infer that "crude" includes experiments of poor quality.  Then you should be forced to take remedial statistics - if you leave me the e-mail of you're supervisor I'd be happy to make the argument to him, her or it.

By your logic you might as well take five highly accurate measurements i.e. +/- 10^-100000 cm and average them with one very poor measurement i.e. -/+ 10^100000 cm and assume that each measurement contributes the same amount of information to the mean.  Do you see your mistake yet?

but EVERYTHING you say can do nothing to disprove the test results.

You need to use more precise English.  If you mean "disprove the interpretation that the test results mean a violation of 2LOT".  Then you're of course incorrect.  I've laid out a logical argument, referenced well-known researchers and demonstrated that there are some pretty big problems with claiming a quantum process can violate 2LOT in the way described by Philip.  Of course most of this is over your head but don't you think it's kind of silly to assume that something which is over your head is automatically wrong just because it doesn't jibe with a poorly done experiment?

Your words are not a test and have no real value especially now that you admit you do not understand the theory of operation

"especially" is the wrong word.  Either I can use a logical argument to demonstrate that something can't be done or I can not.  If I can then your entire diatribe here falls.  If not, well then your argument is self-negating.  If logic can't demonstrate that something can not be done.  Then an experiment doesn't mean anything either.  I'm sure you don't see why but hey try to argue it.  It'll be fun.

You may now resume  bringing yourself to orgasm.