quentron.com

[lumen]

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

Probably an implant would work best.

We both know the programming he has put so much faith in, does not even work and is nothing more than a piece of broken code.

I have indicated many times it does not work like he's thinking, the total result of running comes down to only an output of:

1:False , (which is correct)
2: Program hangs.

He don't see it because he never wrote any real code before. ( C is not my bag, but even I can C that problem)

[doublehelix]

I would like to contribute to this discussion by talking science.

Logically we cannot judge a claim of a violation of the second law on the basis of information theory if that theory maintains it, a violation of the second, as being impossible. Either the observations and conclusions of Hardcastle are wrong, or information theory is wrong as applied to this subject. To have a debate we should accept that there is a challenge made to the second and we should deal with it so.

What I find interesting is that no claims have been made that there has been a $10 experiment that did not produce almost a Volt. Assume that this one claim is true and we have an issue as to explain how you get one volt from the Tube experiment. Why not deal with this?

If an alternative explanation is viewed more likely than it being an effect violating the second law, then it would be on Hardcastle to prove otherwise, but if we fail to find a sound explanation of a Volt we should seek to replicate, is that not a fair approach?

I say that a Volt is an amazing output because it exceeds what I know to be possible with thermocouples, it might be explained by the use of special thermoelectric materials but these are not present in common pentode tubes.

Anyone here have an idea? other than saying it was a measurement error, he must have checked all he could by now to still maintain he and others have found the same results.

[sarkeizen]

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

Good to see you're still bothered by my slamming you down.  I see a web page, Philip had one of those too.

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

Willful ignorance must be very relaxing for you.  This whole discussion was addressing a claim of yours.  Are you saying you concede now?  That you actually do think one can make absolutely true statements about the function of a device without knowing it's mechanism to some arbitrary level of detail?

If no, then the argument stands (with you kind of losing).  If yes, then aren't YOU admitting to derailing the thread deliberately?  Someone who, in good faith was trying to convince someone who was trolling isn't actually exonerating yourself them Lumen.

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

I call shenanagans.  Come back when you actually know something.

Probably an implant would work best.

We both know the programming he has put so much faith in, does not even work and is nothing more than a piece of broken code.

The code executes exactly as I've described.  You claim to have some contrary idea but you simply will not explain it.  I understand being afraid.  Once bitchslapped, twice shy.

Logically we cannot judge a claim of a violation of the second law on the basis of information theory if that theory maintains it

Huh?  My idea had three parts.  i) Maxwell's demon machines have multiple disproofs - I cited a few.  ii) Information theory GENERALIZES 2LOT violations to a particular degree.  Philip dismissed this.  iii) I claimed that if his system is somehow immune to disproof through information theory.  It represents a violation of complexity theory.  I gave my argument and cited a paper.

What I will say is that he has distilled 70 years of the Halting Problem down to his little football - even more inadequate in modern terms than the originals - that nobody else is allowed to speak of... let alone play with.

Again pretty vague.  Ever thought about just coming out with what you're counter-example is?  No?  I've made it clear at least once that the program I'm offering is a simplification of Turing's proof but if you aren't interested in what I actually say and prefer making up your own ideas...not at lot I can do to stop you

Absolutely great guy if ever anybody needed any artwork levelled to +/- 20 degrees.  Cheap too.

Must admit I haven't the slightest idea what that means.  So that's a "yes" then?  You're just making shit up?

[Regster]

Probably an implant would work best.

We both know the programming he has put so much faith in, does not even work and is nothing more than a piece of broken code.

I have indicated many times it does not work like he's thinking, the total result of running comes down to only an output of:

1:False , (which is correct)
2: Program hangs.

He don't see it because he never wrote any real code before. ( C is not my bag, but even I can C that problem)

I hate to be a party pooper, but if you are saying that a hang is proof of a function/equation that continues to calculate halting then it is not.  What I will say is that he has distilled 70 years of the Halting Problem down to his little football - even more inadequate in modern terms than the originals - that nobody else is allowed to speak of... let alone play with.

A Wikipediphile.  If ever there was one.

Absolutely great guy if ever anybody needed any artwork levelled to +/- 20 degrees.  Cheap too.  Crap at brain stuff though... best give him a nice sandwich and not let him see pictures of you kids.

[doublehelix]

If a claim is made of a device violating the second law there is nothing productive in saying prior papers say it is not possible, to use such is to act like a luddite. We all have views, theories and beliefs but a debate about a claim must be based on testing assumptions, not relying on precedent or convenient prior theories arguing the exclusion of the possibility. I once read that the second law is so widely held as being true as it survived challenges, if we have arrived at the point that challenges shall no longer be considered then this forum is pointless, however we have free speech, the right to express ideas and the right to have different views, it is here that we should open our minds.

So let's debate on topic! Otherwise I am going to go to another forum where they do have some rules and moderation.