quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

1: It's really not my job to try and get you up to speed on how things work.

...and you haven't been asked that.

What you have been asked is to provide an argument that refutes the mathematical proof that demonstrates that you don't need to understand the mechanism of something in order to be deterministically correct that it will not work (note - most other human beings don't require the phrase 'deterministically correct' to convey the same meaning but I continue to use it to avoid you deliberately misinterpreting things).

2: Your matimatical proof does not work in view of previously observed results in the contrary.

Ever think of being even a little precise?  One would think that would be valued in an engineer.  The only proof I mentioned in the last post was the Church-Turing thesis (which isn't actually a proof but the portion we're concerned about - the halting problem has been proved.) which smashes your idea that you must know some arbitrary level detail on the mechanism of a thing in order to demonstrate that it can not do what it claims to do.  Since we can PROVE unequivocally that no computer program can be written which satisfies the halting problem.  So ALL programs which profess to solve it CAN NOT WORK.   Clearly then all we need to know about a computer program which is supposed to solve the halting problem is that it's purpose is to solve the halting problem.  Thus not only is there a single case, but a whole class of problems for which mechanism is unnecessary to determine it's ability to work.

Can I now assume that you have conceded this point?   If not, could you supply an actual ARGUMENT rather than just vague assertions of my being wrong?

Moving along your comment about "observed results" actually doesn't make any sense in that context.  Since clearly you have not observed a program determining an arbitrary program's ability to terminate deterministically.  Why?  Because validation contains the same problem as the problem itself.  You can't observe the set of all programs which run forever for any Turing complete language.

So perhaps you mean the results of Elisha's experiment? In which case it's not a "proof" it's my argument which is based on a few proofs and papers.  Now if you're saying that Elisha's experiment disproves my argument then you must also believe that there is absolutely no error in your observation or reasoning.  However not long ago you said that you appeared to say that you think it's possible for a non-2LOT violating explanation to exist.  Since my argument was all about 2LOT violations then the only way Elisha's observations could "disprove" my argument is if the observations are entirely without error.  Otherwise the word you are looking for is "constrain" not "disprove".  It doesn't constrain my argument very much mind you.

3: I do agree that if you do not understand how something is operating you should not pretend to know why it can't.(just makes you look stupid)

However that's a strawman argument.  I don't pretend to know why it can't work.  I presented an argument which restricts the existence of quantum 2LOT violating machines.   Unless you assume that Elisha (or some other observation) is irrefutable then my argument stands and must be directly refuted.  If you think that some set of observations are irrefutable violations of 2LOT then please provide evidence which demonstrates how it is impossible for any other explanation to exist.  Which would seem to make you something of a liar but hey...it's your head screw it up however you see fit.

[lumen]

...and you haven't been asked that.

What you have been asked is to provide an argument that refutes the mathematical proof that demonstrates that you don't need to understand the mechanism of something in order to be deterministically correct that it will not work (note - most other human beings don't require the phrase 'deterministically correct' to convey the same meaning but I continue to use it to avoid you deliberately misinterpreting things).Ever think of being even a little precise?  One would think that would be valued in an engineer.  The only proof I mentioned in the last post was the Church-Turing thesis (which isn't actually a proof but the portion we're concerned about - the halting problem has been proved.) which smashes your idea that you must know some arbitrary level detail on the mechanism of a thing in order to demonstrate that it can not do what it claims to do.  Since we can PROVE unequivocally that no computer program can be written which satisfies the halting problem.  So ALL programs which profess to solve it CAN NOT WORK.   Clearly then all we need to know about a computer program which is supposed to solve the halting problem is that it's purpose is to solve the halting problem.  Thus not only is there a single case, but a whole class of problems for which mechanism is unnecessary to determine it's ability to work.

Can I now assume that you have conceded this point?   If not, could you supply an actual ARGUMENT rather than just vague assertions of my being wrong?

Moving along your comment about "observed results" actually doesn't make any sense in that context.  Since clearly you have not observed a program determining an arbitrary program's ability to terminate deterministically.  Why?  Because validation contains the same problem as the problem itself.  You can't observe the set of all programs which run forever for any Turing complete language.

So perhaps you mean the results of Elisha's experiment? In which case it's not a "proof" it's my argument which is based on a few proofs and papers.  Now if you're saying that Elisha's experiment disproves my argument then you must also believe that there is absolutely no error in your observation or reasoning.  However not long ago you said that you appeared to say that you think it's possible for a non-2LOT violating explanation to exist.  Since my argument was all about 2LOT violations then the only way Elisha's observations could "disprove" my argument is if the observations are entirely without error.  Otherwise the word you are looking for is "constrain" not "disprove".  It doesn't constrain my argument very much mind you.
However that's a strawman argument.  I don't pretend to know why it can't work.  I presented an argument which restricts the existence of quantum 2LOT violating machines.   Unless you assume that Elisha (or some other observation) is irrefutable then my argument stands and must be directly refuted.  If you think that some set of observations are irrefutable violations of 2LOT then please provide evidence which demonstrates how it is impossible for any other explanation to exist.  Which would seem to make you something of a liar but hey...it's your head screw it up however you see fit.

You continue to state off the wall ideas as some fact that is relevant to this theory. Like the computer program crap. Can you write a program to deterministically indicate when a computer program will end, well YES I can. Let me tell you how! Though, I don't see what the Church-Turing thesis has to do with anything.

I will write an emulator that reads all the code and decodes all the instructions and how many clock cycles each instruction takes. As it reads the code it follows all the jumps and interrupts just like it was running (but it's not actually running).
When it's finished it will inform you EXACTLY how long it will take to run and EXACTLY when it will end if it will end. Why is that so hard?
So I haven't conceded that point, I just thought it was too boring to waste time answering.

That is about the same as asking if I can determine which hand the marble is in 100% of the time, The answer is YES I can! Just follow me down to the MRI unit.

Can I tell 100% of the time which shell the marble is under? Well yes, Just let me grab my infrared camera and I'll show you how.

You see, your questions are stupid to an engineer who is used to solving problems. Yes the mathematics can indicate an impossible condition but in reality, there are actual solutions.

Look at hot fusion, mathematics indicate it will work, other problems prevent it from ever working (or at least working to a usable extent)

2LOT has some weak areas that don't seem to hold true on the nano scale environment and the simple valve test indicates this to be one area that should be looked into.
I know of another similar device that uses a magnet to curl the electrons from an emissive surface to another plate and produce a current at room temperature. The magnet is setup to curl the electrons and they cannot travel back.
So the valve is not the only case to show results from an isothermal environment.

Elisha's experiment is not proof, but it is another indication of an already observed phenomenon.


You seem to like to state that because something has always been that way, it can never change. The truth is the only thing that remains constant is change.

[sarkeizen]

You continue to state off the wall ideas as some fact that is relevant to this theory. Like the computer program crap. Can you write a program to deterministically indicate when a computer program will end, well YES I can. Let me tell you how! Though, I don't see what the Church-Turing thesis has to do with anything.

That's because you have less than a 1st year education in computer science (or less than a 1st year memory of one).  The halting problem demonstrates that there are problems which are not decidable (or computable) the Church-Turing thesis is a more general statement about any machine.

I will write an emulator that reads all the code and decodes all the instructions and how many clock cycles each instruction takes. As it reads the code it follows all the jumps and interrupts just like it was running (but it's not actually running).
When it's finished it will inform you EXACTLY how long it will take to run and EXACTLY when it will end if it will end. Why is that so hard?

However when the emulator is running (which is really no different than the program running *if* you think about it which I guess you claim engineers seldom do) the virtual program counter and registers have to take exactly the same path through the code that the registers that a real processor would.  So for programs that run infinitely they too would run infinitely.

Which if you had been paying attention to the way I defined the problem would have given you a hint to how you have just failed to solve it.  Your program can not *determine* if a program ends because an emulator running an endless program never ends.  It can't produce output.  It can not *TELL* you that a program doesn't end.

So I haven't conceded that point, I just thought it was too boring to waste time answering.

Well your answer didn't solve the problem.  Now that you see your mistake you probably should start combing through my comments and try to find a way to misinterpret them so that you can justify your misunderstanding of the problem. :-)

Your first line of defense is probably to claim that you didn't know the program needed to produce output (although how you would imagine that based on the idea that the program is supposed to determine something or tell you something is probably just some inadequacy with your English)

Even if you can argue some misinterpretation of the problem it doesn't really matter. Since the overarching question is: "Do you need to know the mechanism of something to determine that it doesn't work?" and clearly you don't need to know that.  If it helps you see your problem then add the clause "in a finite amount of time" but really, in English that would be covered by the term "determine" or "tell".

You see, your questions are stupid to an engineer who is used to solving problems.

Some might say you shouldn't boast until you actually get the question right.  Just sayin'

Yes the mathematics can indicate an impossible condition but in reality, there are actual solutions.

So far you haven't produced one.  Your program can not tell me if a program terminates.   Since it will never finish analyzing a program that doesn't end.

So are you now conceding the point?  Or do you want to come up with another solution that doesn't work.

Look at hot fusion, mathematics indicate it will work, other problems prevent it from ever working (or at least working to a usable extent)

Different thing entirely.  As usual you are insanely vague about what you mean but if something is not logically impossible that doesn't mean it's feasible.  However you are asserting that something which is logically impossible can still be done. 

2LOT has some weak areas that don't seem to hold true on the nano scale environment

Yes, that's Philips line.  However it's really just a vague assertion...which you are parroting. *rawk* 

and the simple valve test indicates this to be one area that should be looked into.

You mean any valve test?  Including the ones that didn't work?  I think what you mean is you interpret some subset of valve-in-an-oven-tests, to be a violation of 2LOT.  You dont' seem to provide much justification for this point.

Elisha's experiment is not proof, but it is another indication of an already observed phenomenon.

Actually you called it "proof" yourself in your past posts.   So which is it?

Anyway you've kind of chosen your words poorly...again.  "another indication" is stupid and vague.  The only thing that matters is if Elisha's experiment tells us more than we already know.  Even if you assume it is replicating Philip's experiment it doesn't mean it accomplishes this goal.  Elisha's experiment is of poor quality.  Therefore it does not necessarily add any information to the system and by virtue of that it does not increase the probability (or confidence) in the result.  A course in Bayesian statistics would help you understand this.

You seem to like to state that because something has always been that way, it can never change.

No, at not point have I stated that something can not change *BY VIRTUE* of it having not changed.  Again, learn. to. read.

The truth is the only thing that remains constant is change.

Yawn. Another good example of how you, by your own logic shouldn't be listened to.  I have made a logical argument based on a few papers and assumptions which were given by Philip.  You just made a statement about everything with no evidence to support it.  So...considering you said that those who say they know a lot shouldn't be listened to.  Who is stating a greater knowledge the person who is saying they know a little bit about a few things which happen to be applicable here (me) OR the person who just made a general statement about everything in the universe (you).

[lumen]

That's because you have less than a 1st year education in computer science (or less than a 1st year memory of one).  The halting problem demonstrates that there are problems which are not decidable (or computable) the Church-Turing thesis is a more general statement about any machine.However when the emulator is running (which is really no different than the program running *if* you think about it which I guess you claim engineers seldom do) the virtual program counter and registers have to take exactly the same path through the code that the registers that a real processor would.  So for programs that run infinitely they too would run infinitely.

Which if you had been paying attention to the way I defined the problem would have given you a hint to how you have just failed to solve it.  Your program can not *determine* if a program ends because an emulator running an endless program never ends.  It can't produce output.  It can not *TELL* you that a program doesn't end. Well your answer didn't solve the problem.  Now that you see your mistake you probably should start combing through my comments and try to find a way to misinterpret them so that you can justify your misunderstanding of the problem. :-)

Your first line of defense is probably to claim that you didn't know the program needed to produce output (although how you would imagine that based on the idea that the program is supposed to determine something or tell you something is probably just some inadequacy with your English)

Even if you can argue some misinterpretation of the problem it doesn't really matter. Since the overarching question is: "Do you need to know the mechanism of something to determine that it doesn't work?" and clearly you don't need to know that.  If it helps you see your problem then add the clause "in a finite amount of time" but really, in English that would be covered by the term "determine" or "tell".
Some might say you shouldn't boast until you actually get the question right.  Just sayin'So far you haven't produced one.  Your program can not tell me if a program terminates.   Since it will never finish analyzing a program that doesn't end.

So are you now conceding the point?  Or do you want to come up with another solution that doesn't work.
Different thing entirely.  As usual you are insanely vague about what you mean but if something is not logically impossible that doesn't mean it's feasible.  However you are asserting that something which is logically impossible can still be done.  Yes, that's Philips line.  However it's really just a vague assertion...which you are parroting. *rawk*  You mean any valve test?  Including the ones that didn't work?  I think what you mean is you interpret some subset of valve-in-an-oven-tests, to be a violation of 2LOT.  You dont' seem to provide much justification for this point.Actually you called it "proof" yourself in your past posts.   So which is it?

Anyway you've kind of chosen your words poorly...again.  "another indication" is stupid and vague.  The only thing that matters is if Elisha's experiment tells us more than we already know.  Even if you assume it is replicating Philip's experiment it doesn't mean it accomplishes this goal.  Elisha's experiment is of poor quality.  Therefore it does not necessarily add any information to the system and by virtue of that it does not increase the probability (or confidence) in the result.  A course in Bayesian statistics would help you understand this.
No, at not point have I stated that something can not change *BY VIRTUE* of it having not changed.  Again, learn. to. read.
Yawn. Another good example of how you, by your own logic shouldn't be listened to.  I have made a logical argument based on a few papers and assumptions which were given by Philip.  You just made a statement about everything with no evidence to support it.  So...considering you said that those who say they know a lot shouldn't be listened to.  Who is stating a greater knowledge the person who is saying they know a little bit about a few things which happen to be applicable here (me) OR the person who just made a general statement about everything in the universe (you).

Yes, you do have one thing correct, I had chosen a word wrong, EMULATOR should have been ANALYZER for the computer problem.
The code ANALYZER will count the clock cycles and will determine an endless loop and will determine end times if possible and never itself be caught in the endless loop because it can determine it was an endless loop by the code.
You must have had NO computer science. Just some trash locked in your head that someone told you.

You seem to think that some all encompassing formula can determine if something can work or not even if you don't understand how it works.
Let me show you where you fail, where entropy is reversed and continues to reverse and you can dig you self out and possibly adjust your thinking.

Starting from the first life on this planet, intelligence (at least for some of us) has progressed in a forward direction without basis. There is no apparent reason why intelligence would increase in the face of entropy when intelligence is really order.
It's like a computer designing and structuring itself, and your formulas are lost in the face of this, and in fact are just a figment of the very structure that was erected from nothing, defying the formulas.

The very fact that your formula exists is in itself proof that it is wrong!

So just when you thought you had this all figured out, you were just blinding yourself to look one level higher. (common problem with egocentric people)

Kids anyway!

[sarkeizen]

Yes, you do have one thing correct, I had chosen a word wrong, EMULATOR should have been ANALYZER for the computer problem.
The code ANALYZER will count the clock cycles and will determine an endless loop and will determine end times if possible and never itself be caught in the endless loop because it can determine it was an endless loop by the code.

So your ANALYZER must contain some part that recognizes a loop and then calls a function to determine if the loop ends or not right?

You must have had NO computer science. Just some trash locked in your head that someone told you.

Just answer the question above please.

You seem to think that some all encompassing formula can determine if something can work or not even if you don't understand how it works.

Depends on what you mean by "all encompassing" (you're being terribly vague again).  The idea that there exists no algorithm to solve some particular, well-defined problem (and by extension no device can be built which solves said problem) isn't any different than saying there exists no integer which satisfies 2 * X = 3.  If that's "all-encompassing" then you are, of course wrong.  If it's not "all-encompassing", then neither is the halting problem.

The very fact that your formula exists is in itself proof that it is wrong!

Which formula?  You are so incredibly vague you can't even say that.  Do you mean my logical argument against Philip's nonsense or do you mean the proof of the halting problem.  Please provide a formal logical argument if you want to disprove something (in the strong math sense of the term)

So just when you thought you had this all figured out, you were just blinding yourself to look one level higher. (common problem with egocentric people)

So again, I've asserted a few things about math which have been proved (in the strong math sense not the weak lumen sense) and you just asserted something about every person on earth (and possibly in the universe).  Math is arguably a smaller field than the sum of human behavior.   So again aren't you, by your own logic the more egotistical of the two of us?  Just sayin'