Quote from: sarkeizen on January 27, 2013, 05:20:23 PM
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.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.

It doesn't matter what the original code was, the problem was fixed by allowing the function to run on itself as I have shown. This fixed the problem in your code also for the same reason. Now you are simply sidetracking.
That's not what this thread is about anyway, if you want to talk impossible code then start a new thread.

Quote from: lumen on January 27, 2013, 06:23:42 PM
It doesn't matter what the original code was,

It does if whatever you think you did doesn't fix the problem with my code. Or would you disagree?

Quotethe problem was fixed by allowing the function to run on itself as I have shown

Then simply show it again, using the exact code I gave and answer my questions concerning it's operation.. 

If you can show, exactly -  answering all of my questions to the degree of accuracy I ask for - how your change to WillThisEnd() allows my code to run through it correctly under all the conditions I've stipulated in this thread then I'm willing to believe you have a point - of course you don't and I'm guessing you're just trolling and have already realized that you're wrong.  Why else provide no information about your alleged "solution"?  Why spend all your energy resisting answering simple questions? If you can simply and clearly refute the already demonstrated brokenness of WillThisEnd() why wouldn't you?

Then again maybe you don't know that your "solution" does anything.  As it stands you don't even seem to understand the problem but since you won't say almost anything about your solution except that it works (and a little C-like code which is ambiguous at best).  This is a lot like claiming you won a fight with Muhammad Ali but refusing to get into the ring.

Kind of dishonest if you ask me.

Quote from: sarkeizen on January 27, 2013, 06:44:42 PM
It does if whatever you think you did doesn't fix the problem with my code. Or would you disagree?Then simply show it again, using the exact code I gave and answer my questions concerning it's operation.. 

If you can show, exactly -  answering all of my questions to the degree of accuracy I ask for - how your change to WillThisEnd() allows my code to run through it correctly under all the conditions I've stipulated in this thread then I'm willing to believe you have a point.  However if all you're going to do is whine, shriek, complain, block, avoid and never even once show your work.  Well, I think you've conceded my point already.

I admit dealing with someone who is so stupid they can't see the point and so arrogant they refuse to elucidate their own is kind of a unique experience.  Perhaps lumen's engineering school was just teaching people to be giant dicks.  I mean clearly they weren't teaching math, computer science, programming (he still isn't writing C worth a damn).  Maybe this wasn't his specialty?  Like perhaps he majored in cardboard box engineering, vinyl siding engineering or perhaps "the little rubber feet on heavy stuff" engineering.

You might need to help me find your"original" code since you flip flopped around so much I thought I was dealing with a carp on the beach
Is this the original or just another tangent?
"WillThisEnd(program,data)

Where program is a pointer to the bytecode and data is a pointer to the input data.  In terms of output let's say the function returns 'true' if the program terminates and 'false' if the program does not terminate"
The only differance here is that the data could alter the course of the program to finish or not, but the fact remains, the result would be correctly determined in either case.
For the "C", you still aren't writing assembler worth a crap. Or even basic. Are we concerened with syntax here or if the program concept works.
In fact, this crap is simply a waste of time. You are just trying to support something you read rather than question if what you read might be wrong.
If you want to someday be somebody, you need to do your own thinking.

Now, is this the "original" question?

Quote from: lumen on January 27, 2013, 07:20:55 PM
You might need to help me find your"original" code since you flip flopped around so much I thought I was dealing with a carp on the beach
Is this the original or just another tangent?
"WillThisEnd(program,data)

Well first thanks for admitting what I've said for about six posts now.   You don't have a single half of a clue as to what I'm talking about.  Interesting that really didn't seem to get in the way of you being so utterly arrogant that you couldn't believe that you had got it wrong.  Post after post after post after post of you going on and on and on about a "solution".  When in fact, you didn't even read enough of my posts to even see the problem.  Really, if there's someone here with an ego which is enormous to the point of being crippling it's you and this should be a wake-up call....but it probably won't be.

Well moving on...if you had read the posts I made after that I built upon the concept of using WillThisEnd() by creating a new function WillThisEndOnSelf() which takes a single argument which is a pointer to a program. i.e.

function WillThisEndOnSelf(program) {
     if ( WillThisEnd(program,program) == 'true' )
        while (1);
     else
        return;
}

All this is, is a function which is run on the CPU - which happens to call WillThisEnd (which is your interpreter).  If WillThisEnd returns 'true' then WillThisEndOnSelf goes into an infinite loop.  However if WillThisEnd returns 'false' then it terminates normally.

Again if you had actually followed along with the posts and read the words in them you would have seen that my question was.  What happens when you run:

WillThisEndOnSelf(WillThisEndOnSelf);

Using your software as "WillThisEnd()"

Quote
For the "C", you still aren't writing assembler worth a crap.

I haven't written any assembler here so that's kind of an empty criticism.  C is a useful tool because the syntax is largely settled (unlike say Python), it doesn't differ significantly from architecture to architecture, it allows a fair amount of low level access and it can create pretty complex code with limited library support (as opposed to Java).

The fact that you can't write it, even to the point of realizing that you need to pass as many arguments as your function is defined with is kind of telling.  Look at the evidence!  You haven't shown very much code of any kind.  You don't appear to understand rudimentary computer science.  I get that some people are self-taught and primarily "practical" coders and I also get that others are formally taught and generally "theoretical" coders.  You seem to suck at both.

Granted I'm looking at a limited sample of what you can do but that's pretty much your own fault as you have worked very hard to avoid showing any code.

QuoteAre we concerened with syntax here or if the program concept works.

If you had even taken a high-school course in programming you would have known that some of the syntax you used was AMBIGUOUS so while I'm not concerned if something is letter-perfect. If you write utter crap like:

lumenFunction(lumenFunction) = 4;

Then of course there's a problem. See, "=" is an ASSIGNMENT operator in so many programming languages it's not even funny.   So what this line is actually attempting to do is unclear, if it in fact does anything at all.  Even this might be tolerable if you would actually ANSWER QUESTIONS about your code but you don't.

So you have provided me with good reason to think you're the biggest fucking loser that has ever sat down at a computer.  Capiche?

Quote
You are just trying to support something you read rather than question if what you read might be wrong.

That would be good advice if you also applied it to yourself.   This thread is pages and pages and pages of you crooning about how solving the halting problem is so easy....WHEN YOU DIDN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT!   Sorry the only person not questioning themselves here is you. 

Also if questioning things is good how come your belief that I didn't question Turing's proof isn't being questioned? My marital status was, according to you unquestionable.  I could go on an on how many ridiculous moronic and overly broad things you've asserted without any doubt at all.

  The only thing *I've* maintained is that there exists a mathematical PROOF restricting the kinds of programs which can be written.  Unlike you, who immediately assumed (and did not question themselves) that whatever the problem is it can't possibly something that can't be done.  Unlike you I actually read Turing's paper.  I did the proof.  What I'm giving you here is an "easy to understand" version and still you're still so stupid that you don't understand it.

I like to think that despite being  acerbic I've been pretty patient with your nonsense.  Considering that the proof in question has held up to scrutiny for over seventy years.  I've let you talk about how easy something is.  I've put up with your foot-dragging when answering the most simple and trivial of questions.  The only thing I wanted was for you to make your case in a clear an unambiguous manner but when you finally agree to the presuppositions involved with this you didn't even bother to read the post demonstrating the problem and went on to argue something COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

Really?  You think I need to question myself more.  That's really what's going through your head?

@ All

Does anyone else out there feel like every page of this thread reads like the page before?     Can anyone say, "Groundhog day!"  Please Lord may this thread end.....end......end...