quentron.com

[lumen]

Well that was fun...I wonder if lumen has conceded the point yet?  I wonder if he realizes he's trapped yet? or that his stated algorithm for detecting infinite loops doesn't meet our requirements?  Which is another way of saying that is to say it doesn't work!  I hope I'm not 15 like lumen said, otherwise that would be pretty humiliating for a 30 year old engineer/programmer to be schooled by a 15 year old.

If anyone else doesn't understand where lumen is wrong, or wants to pick up the argument where lumen left off then feel free to post.

What makes you think I left off, SOME of us actually have a life outside of here.

Your math has a serious flaw! Your formula can be perfect and flawless but the values assigned are interpreted values by approximation and in the end make you formula useless.

I can only define the minimum requirements that cause your halting program theory to FAIL, That is, the minimum requirements of the CPU that would allow a supervisory program to monitor ANY arbitrary program you run and determine if it ends, does not end, gives time to end and never halts the CPU.

This it totally achievable with the new CPUs today but I was wondering at what point in time did this become possible, because someone should have challenged the theory at that time.  The problem is that this never changes the theory because it remains true in the sense of the machines operation, but the theory fails to include self induced external events by the CPU which cause the theory to fail.

The same is true of all the mathematical representations of machines, they either fail because some values must be determined to represent parts of the machine by a Human, or the fact that the machine can in itself alter it's path either randomly or measurably.

The theories are only trying to frame the method of the machine and not the limit if it's capability, for if it does, it will fail at some point because change is inevitable.

Some people believe that everything can be represented mathematically, and if it could be, it would only apply for that instant because mathematically, it's still changing.

So crush away!

@ Bruce

Nice picture, but I don't think sarkeizen is that old!

[sarkeizen]

What makes you think I left off, SOME of us actually have a life outside of here.

So do I but considering your confidence in your solution (having a privileged execution ring allows you to solve the halting problem) it should be the most trivial thing in the world to tell me what features you need to remove.   Assuming you're right, which you aren't

I can only define the minimum requirements that cause your halting program theory to FAIL, That is, the minimum requirements of the CPU that would allow a supervisory program to monitor ANY arbitrary program you run and determine if it ends, does not end, gives time to end and never halts the CPU.

What? ROFL.  If that is the minimum requirements to fail then - by DEFINITION - removing ANYTHING ELSE would mean that it would succeed.  Otherwise if you can remove something and it can still fail then it isn't the MINIMUM requirements. Is logic not taught to engineers either?

Seriously you are so amazingly and blindly overconfident that a privileged instruction mode (i.e. Ring 0) solves the halting problem BUT you can't say for certain that an 8 bit CPU with no access to external special hardware or internal timers isn't able to do it?  A while ago you seemed confident that the halting problem was true for computers of the past.  However now you're not so sure.  ROFL.

This it totally achievable with the new CPUs today

Nope, but I'll crush your argument once you answer my question.

but the theory fails to include self induced external events by the CPU which cause the theory to fail.

So in other words a CPU without any timers, privileged mode or access to external circuitry except memory and the ability to load the program for analysis and the ability to tell you if the program will halt.  Can't solve the halting problem right?  If not, then list the self-induced EXTERNAL events (which is pathetically poorly defined btw) which are possible in this configuration.

I'm sure you'll take your time answering because you feel the trap closing.  In the meantime perhaps Bruce_TPU will post more pictures so that he feels at least tangentially involved in a discussion that is miles over his head.

[lumen]

So do I but considering your confidence in your solution (having a privileged execution ring allows you to solve the halting problem) it should be the most trivial thing in the world to tell me what features you need to remove.   Assuming you're right, which you aren't :)What? ROFL.  If that is the minimum requirements to fail then - by DEFINITION - removing ANYTHING ELSE would mean that it would succeed.  Otherwise if you can remove something and it can still fail then it isn't the MINIMUM requirements. Is logic not taught to engineers either?

Seriously you are so amazingly and blindly overconfident that a privileged instruction mode (i.e. Ring 0) solves the halting problem BUT you can't say for certain that an 8 bit CPU with no access to external special hardware or internal timers isn't able to do it?  A while ago you seemed confident that the halting problem was true for computers of the past.  However now you're not so sure.  ROFL.Nope, but I'll crush your argument once you answer my question.So in other words a computer without any timers, privileged mode or access to external circuitry except memory and the ability to load the program for analysis and the ability to tell you if the program will halt.  Can't solve the halting problem right?  If not, then list the self-induced EXTERNAL events (which is pathetically poorly defined btw) which are possible in this configuration.

I'm sure you'll take your time answering because you feel the trap closing.  In the meantime perhaps Bruce_TPU will post more pictures so that he feels at least tangentially involved in a discussion that is miles over his head.

The only thing I'm trying to avoid is writing a program that proves you wrong because it's a waste of my time when I know it can be done!

I am sure that this entire "halting program theory" could have been proven wrong with the first CPU with a watchdog timer, vectored interrupts and sufficient memory to run the analytical  code.

I think it's all a waste of time, the theory is obsolete, you just need to wake up and get over it.
If you want to try it yourself, just install some good debugging software on windows xp and run some arbitrary code. You can see it does not halt the CPU, you can break into it any time and see what it's doing, you can even violate the "halting program theory" yourself!

Just get over it and move onto something useful like the mathematical representation of the quenco chip. Then we can all see why it works.

[sarkeizen]

The only thing I'm trying to avoid is writing a program that proves you wrong because it's a waste of my time when I know it can be done!

What? Nobody asked you to...what I have asked you about four times now...is for an answer to some exceptionally simple questions.  Of course if you are going to cower away and not answer my questions.  Then of course I can't crush your argument.  After all even Ali can't win a fight with an opponent who keeps finding excuses from stepping into the ring 

Up to you if you want to learn something that, if we are to believe your posts.  You think is highly valuable (since the degree of confidence you have in the antithesis of something determines the value of learning you're wrong)

I am sure that this entire "halting program theory" could have been proven wrong with the first CPU with a watchdog timer, vectored interrupts and sufficient memory to run the analytical  code.

Again, please say that you are certain that a CPU with no watchdog timer, no vectored interrupts can't solve it and your argument will be dust in about two steps but if you are afraid of learning you're wrong then...

It's amazing how much help I've given you with this.  I've provided something like four different situations in which all you have to do is say: "Yes" or "No, but it would be yes if we changed X".  Dumb or lazy either isn't very impressive.

I think it's all a waste of time, the theory is obsolete, you just need to wake up and get over it.

Look, it's simple answer my questions and I destroy your ridiculous moronic and egotistical thinking on the subject.   That is all you really have to lose here.  If solving the problem is as easy as you say (several quotes of yours say it's easy) then you've probably already spent enough time to implement the solution.  So time is not the issue.

If you want to try it yourself, just install some good debugging software on windows xp and run some arbitrary code. You can see it does not halt the CPU, you can break into it any time and see what it's doing, you can even violate the "halting program theory" yourself!

Nope, that doesn't do it.   Again please answer the question.  I do your posts infinitely more courtesy in responding to them than you do mine. 

While you're spending time trying to think up ways to weasel out of answering my questions.  Perhaps Bruce_TPU can post some more pictures so again he can feel like he's contributing to something he couldn't understand even with subtitles.

Note by "about two steps": I mean including all your foot-dragging and whining is part of a single step.

[lumen]

What? Nobody asked you to...what I have asked you about four times now...is for an answer to some exceptionally simple questions.  Of course if you are going to cower away and not answer my questions.  Then of course I can't crush your argument.  After all even Ali can't win a fight with an opponent who keeps finding excuses from stepping into the ring 

Up to you if you want to learn something that, if we are to believe your posts.  You think is highly valuable (since the degree of confidence you have in the antithesis of something determines the value of learning you're wrong)Again, please say that you are certain that a CPU with no watchdog timer, no vectored interrupts can't solve it and your argument will be dust in about two steps but if you are afraid of learning you're wrong then...

It's amazing how much help I've given you with this.  I've provided something like four different situations in which all you have to do is say: "Yes" or "No, but it would be yes if we changed X".  Dumb or lazy either isn't very impressive.Look, it's simple answer my questions and I destroy your ridiculous moronic and egotistical thinking on the subject.   That is all you really have to lose here.  If solving the problem is as easy as you say (several quotes of yours say it's easy) then you've probably already spent enough time to implement the solution.  So time is not the issue.Nope, that doesn't do it.   Again please answer the question.  I do your posts infinitely more courtesy in responding to them than you do mine. 

While you're spending time trying to think up ways to weasel out of answering my questions.  Perhaps Bruce_TPU can post some more pictures so again he can feel like he's contributing to something he couldn't understand even with subtitles.

Note by "about two steps": I mean including all your foot-dragging and whining is part of a single step.

I am going to just finish you off here with only ONE requirement or ability of the CPU to trash the theory.

The control program simply needs ONE controlling instruction that the "arbitrary program" does not have access to.

Fin!


So you admit that your in this channel only to distract from the purpose of the channel with arguments about weak theories!

So you admit that you do not understand the principal behind the quenco chip!

You also admit that you are here to somehow boost your ego because your life has gone nowhere, so you play a chess game to feel better?

Why don't you want to apply your math to the quenco chip? It seems like it should be quite easy math for someone who claims to know so much.

I might need to step out here for a minute, so I can put on some higher boots!