Quote from: lumen on January 27, 2013, 09:42:14 AM
Oh, but how the arguments are not correct, Oh, It might not even compile, Oh...... Oh.

Your just trying to put the proof on me to show it works.

Uh...yeah that's the way it works.  I gave an unambiguous piece of pseudo-code and I explained that regardless of how your program processes it - it will always be wrong.  So yeah, you are responsible for producing a cogent and clear argument as to where the problem is with my proof.  Just saying "It workz bec4uz uf p4ram3ters" doesn't qualify.  Perhaps in your engineering school things were different....and more stupid.

As far as compiling, errors etc...I'd simply expect that someone who programmed computers for 30 years to produce C-like syntax that was unambiguous.  Again, your school may have had different standards...or none at all.

Quote
WillThisEnd(WillThisEnd) = True

To me this says you're *executing* a function with the function pointer to itself as a parameter and assigning the result location the value of "true".  If this was any C-like language that would i) not compile because WillThisEnd takes two parameters not just one and ii) Even if you were allowed to do this kind of assignment it wouldn't do anything meaningful.  Perhaps you are imagining something like:

funciton WillThisEnd(program,data) {
   if program == WillThisEnd
      return 'true';
<insert other code that doesn't work here>
}

So a question - can you point out where I actually call WillThisEnd(WillThisEnd) in my example? If I don't then isn't your example kind of irrelevant.

After all that boasting it seems you didn't even know what the problem I gave you was.  That would be sad, if it wasn't at the same time funny.

Quote
This WAS the only case that it could not run, so excluding this single case and providing the correct result DOES SOLVE THE ENTIRE PROBLEM.

Dude, your "solution" is "solving" a situation I never gave it.  How could it possibly affect my proof.  Perhaps you need to go and re-read what I wrote?

Quote
Don't ever think you know more than anyone else.
There is always someone that knows more or is faster or is stronger or is better looking. If it's not me, it's someone else.

I believe there are many people who are smarter than myself.  Turing, for one - who wrote the proof that is crushing your argument - once you figure out where the problem actually is of course.  Anyway least we can be reasonably sure, in this respect you're definitely dumber than Turing...I mean you didn't even recognize the PROBLEM my program created for your interpreter!

Like I said, you really don't understand what I'm saying.  Perhaps YOU"RE the one who's in such a rush to dismiss something you didn't bother to understand the problem.

QuoteI tire of this game and I have real work to do today

Come to think of it I also have something more challenging to do...There's a new season of "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic" that I need to get caught up on.

Quote
We can play another game again soon.

Well in case you're wondering the score is sarkeizen 2 (one point for my correct proof, and another for noticing that your "solution" is not even in the same ballpark), lumen 0.  I'm being nice not awarding negative points for wrong answers - some of my profs did that.  Perhaps in your school they just gave out happy faces and said "Good Try!"

Quote from: Bruce_TPU
I'm so lonely! Please give me a hug.

Bruce_TPU! I was hoping you would post another picture.  It's like a constant affirmation that i) I bother you ii) This conversation is so far out of your league that it would cost you $0.69/min just to dial a clue.

Considering that you're advising lumen that I'm not listening to him (even to all evidence suggests the opposite)/  Are you not also implicitly advocating that lumen is correct.  ROFL. Perhaps instead of siding with someone because of a mutual enemy or mancrush.  You should think about the argument presented and judge for yourself.  If you have a counter-argument I'd love to hear it - but mostly because I'd love to crush it.

Quote from: sarkeizen on January 27, 2013, 01:06:50 PM
Uh...yeah that's the way it works.  I gave an unambiguous piece of pseudo-code and I explained that regardless of how your program processes it - it will always be wrong.  So yeah, you are responsible for producing a cogent and clear argument as to where the problem is with my proof.  Just saying "It workz bec4uz uf p4ram3ters" doesn't qualify.  Perhaps in your engineering school things were different....and more stupid.

As far as compiling, errors etc...I'd simply expect that someone who programmed computers for 30 years to produce C-like syntax that was unambiguous.  Again, your school may have had different standards...or none at all.To me this says you're *executing* a function with the function pointer to itself as a parameter and assigning the result location the value of "true".  If this was any C-like language that would i) not compile because WillThisEnd takes two parameters not just one and ii) Even if you were allowed to do this kind of assignment it wouldn't do anything meaningful.  Perhaps you are imagining something like:

funciton WillThisEnd(program,data) {
   if program == WillThisEnd
      return 'true';
<insert other code that doesn't work here>
}

So a question - can you point out where I actually call WillThisEnd(WillThisEnd) in my example? If I don't then isn't your example kind of irrelevant.

After all that boasting it seems you didn't even know what the problem I gave you was.  That would be sad, if it wasn't at the same time funny.Dude, your "solution" is "solving" a situation I never gave it.  How could it possibly affect my proof.  Perhaps you need to go and re-read what I wrote?
I believe there are many people who are smarter than myself.  For example Turing - who wrote the proof that is crushing your argument - once you figure out where the problem actually is of course.  At least we know, in this respect it's definitely not you...you didn't even recognize the PROBLEM my code created for your code!

Like I said, you really don't understand what I'm saying.  Perhaps YOU"RE the one who's in such a rush to dismiss something you didn't bother to understand the problem.
Come to think of it I also have something more challenging to do...There's a new season of "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic" that I need to get caught up on.
Well in case you're wondering the score is sarkeizen 2 (one point for my correct proof, and another for noticing that your "solution" is not even in the same ballpark), lumen 0 (I'm being nice not awarding negative points for wrong answers - some of my profs did that.  Perhaps in your school they just gave out happy faces and said "Good Try!"Bruce_TPU! I was hoping you would post another picture.  It's like a constant affirmation that i) I bother you ii) This conversation is so far out of your league that it would cost you $0.69/min just to dial a clue.

Considering that you're advising lumen that I'm not listening to him (even to all evidence suggests the opposite)/  Are you not also implicitly advocating that lumen is correct.  ROFL. Perhaps instead of siding with someone because of a mutual enemy or mancrush.  You should think about the argument presented and judge for yourself.  If you have a counter-argument I'd love to hear it - but mostly because I'd love to crush it.

Well, whatever you say.
I only see someone squirming because their proof is now gone.
So whatever you say, go try to save yourself as everyone watches you squirm.
The more you squirm, the faster you sink.

Quote from: lumen on January 27, 2013, 02:39:52 PM.
I only see someone squirming because their proof is now gone.

*sigh* back to the same thing where you are hiding your argument from me.  Never met a more frightened person than lumen. 

I produced some code which I say breaks your interpreter.
I explained how every output of any interpreter which meets the criteria we agreed on can not work with this code.
You produced code which you say somehow avoids this problem.  Right?
Don't you have to run your fix against my code?

Please show that.

HINT: My code was not  WillThisEnd(WillThisEnd,WillThisEnd)

- I made that syntactically correct for you since apparently you don't know that a function which requires two parameters won't compile if it's written using only one (in C and C-like languages anyway)

Quote from: sarkeizen on January 27, 2013, 03:34:20 PM
*sigh* back to the same thing where you are hiding your argument from me.  Never met a more frightened person than lumen. 

I produced some code which I say breaks your interpreter.
I explained how every output of any interpreter which meets the criteria we agreed on can not work with this code.
You produced code which you say somehow avoids this problem.  Right?
Don't you have to run your fix against my code?

Please show that.

HINT: My code was not  WillThisEnd(WillThisEnd,WillThisEnd)

- I made that syntactically correct for you since apparently you don't know that a function which requires two parameters won't compile if it's written using only one (in C and C-like languages anyway)

*sigh* back to the same thing where you are hiding your argument from yourself.  Never met a more fickle person than sarkeizen.
If WillThisEnd(WillThisEnd) then print "sarkeizen is an idiot"
Hey it works! The result is passed back on the stack!

Quote from: lumen on January 27, 2013, 04:57:35 PM
*sigh* back to the same thing where you are hiding your argument from yourself.

Dude.  Look at the original post.  That was not the code that didn't work.  You might as well have tested:

function lumenJerksHimselfOff(){
   static int strokes = 0;
   if (strokes++ > 1) {
      printf("Oh I'm done\n");
      }
}

It has about as much in common with my code as what you just tested.

Quote
If WillThisEnd(WillThisEnd) then print "sarkeizen is an idiot"
Hey it works! The result is passed back on the stack!

Uh....I said the code that I gave that doesn't work on your interpreter WAS NOT WillThisEnd(WillThisEnd).

So by testing some code that I didn't use in my example.  How does that affect my proof?

Please stop avoiding the question.  It has been stated clearly and unambiguously man times.

Wait.  Are you thinking that the problem I outlined is that the interpreter is being passed as a parameter or something?  ROFL.  Really?  That's your grand argument? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.