quentron.com

[Regster]

Trolling is what Bruce_TPU does - posts deliberately provocative messages which are otherwise vacuous and you're right he should stop.

I came up with a logical argument as to why Philip's idea can not work.   Drawing on information theory and complexity theory.   Lumen believed that I don't understand Philip's design which I agreed with because Phillip has produced nothing in terms of a design that shows how 2LOT is violated.  Lumen then went on to argue that if I don't understand some arbitrary level of detail I can't say that something doesn't work.  The foray into an exceptionally well-known road in computer science to disprove Lumen's point is at best a digression.

If Lumen had conceded the point - upon which there is no disagreement among mathematicians (mathematical proofs are often like that) - it would have been a short argument and we could have gone back to talking directly about Quenco.  Instead he wheedled and whined and tried to find some silly excuse for not losing and then he left in a huff.

We still can get back to the problem with Philips idea - if you want to concede those points I mentioned.

There is disagreement amongst computer scientists as to the validity of the proof (and others) you worship so.  One major point being that in writing a program to detect whether another one would halt, the inability to handle the proof would be an easily rectified corner case bug.... !IsProgramSelf....   which then could have lead on to an vaguely interesting theoretical discussion*.   One perhaps in which the bounds of the proposition could be debated insofar as the usefulness of the application as it relates to the real-world.  Whether precluding well founded probability in favour of deterministic dogma is either necessary or desirable.  After all, if 1 in every 10¹⁰⁰⁰ results are wrong... what impact does that really have, other than in the bounds of a purely theoretical discussion?

And re information/complexity theory as it relates to quenco as described.... irrelevant.  If anyone can think of a more fitting example than the salmon leap I'd love to hear it (although the salmon leap could do with the flow going upstream after the obstacle to really fit (or having an enormous sub aqua hoover there)).  No need of a mathematical proof of the non-existence of an imaginary demon.  On that note, even talking about disproving imaginary demons is borderline religious.  Especially information gathering ones.

Only time will tell, of an indeterminate but finite length.  The real world probability is looking good though.

* yes, you may say you tried with the Pi thing, but only a child would embrace a serious want with such insults.  So my conclusion is that you are all ego/Wikipedia and no brain.  If you could get time off from your photocopier repair job (or whatever you do), you could get paid similar cash for taking part in medical studies.

[sarkeizen]

Back from googling I see.

There is disagreement amongst computer scientists as to the validity of the proof (and others) you worship so.

Please provide journal article references.  If there is disagreement it's not very widespread.

One major point being that in writing a program to detect whether another one would halt, the inability to handle the proof would be an easily rectified corner case bug.... !IsProgramSelf....   which then could have lead on to an vaguely interesting theoretical discussion*.

What?  You really should be clearer.  It sounds like IsProgramSelf is detecting if the program being fed to WillThisHalt is WillThisHalt i.e. WillThisHalt(WillThisHalt,WillThisHalt) so you could optimize with an: if (program == WillThisHalt).  However that's not happening so you're really going to have to explain what the alleged corner case is.

One perhaps in which the bounds of the proposition could be debated insofar as the usefulness of the application as it relates to the real-world.  Whether precluding well founded probability in favour of deterministic dogma is either necessary or desirable.

Yawn, you're being an idiot.  The idea that a deterministic machine can't be built isn't precluding probability at all.  Neither intrinsically nor in my own dialogue - I've mentioned a few times in this thread if you change the problem definition you create potential to solve the problem.

After all, if 1 in every 10¹⁰⁰⁰ results are wrong... what impact does that really have, other than in the bounds of a purely theoretical discussion?

Actually some people think you can do better - that is you can make your bound arbitrarily small.  Your ridiculously bad logical error is your presumption that this isn't a theoretical discussion.  The point was to illustrate that one can make absolutely true statements about the function of a device without knowing some arbitrary level of detail about it's function.    This was a point brought up by lumen - time and time again.  At least one simpler counter-argument was brought up but lumen seemed fixated on this one.  It seemed to bruise his engineer pride.

And re information/complexity theory as it relates to quenco as described.... irrelevant.

Why?  Please be detailed.

The real world probability is looking good though.

Please give a detailed quantification how this is so.

yes, you may say you tried with the Pi thing, but only a child would embrace a serious want with such insults.

Your sentence barely qualifies as English.  You seemed to be having trouble with the problem at hand.  I asked a few questions.  i) If a deterministic algorithm exists - what complexity class would it be?  ii)  Since you seem to say how utterly easy it is to write the kind of code that I say is impossible.  I'd thought I'd give you a chance to do something that's at least hard.  Looking at the problem from the other side, if you will.

[sarkeizen]

I could not agree more doublehelix!  Enough is enough.

From the guy who would post insulting images, to the guy who's talking about math and science.

[lumen]

From the guy who would post insulting images, to the guy who's talking about math and science.

You might want to hurry and let go that Maxwell Demon you captured, so it can stop this device from working, before others see it working.

Boink.....Boink! math, bouncing around in sarkeizen's head?

Doubtful. 

http://www.theimagingsource.biz/en/technology/ambientheatelectricity/


sarkeizen was not correct about the MD, so I put little credit in anything else..... well I guess there was nothing else.

I egged him on long enough to show he has no other interest in this channel, except to create a diversion.

[Regster]

It sounds like IsProgramSelf is detecting if the program being fed to WillThisHalt is WillThisHalt i.e. WillThisHalt(WillThisHalt,WillThisHalt) so you could optimize with an: if (program == WillThisHalt).  However that's not happening so you're really going to have to explain what the alleged corner case is.

If I need to explain that, you need brain surgery.  Case closed.