quentron.com

[lumen]

What I see is Philip's insane claims of why his device should work and his obsession to show that it will, and your insane claims that it cannot work and your obsession to show that it cannot!

Where is this different?
One has learned from the past without exception and one has learned from the past with exception?
It looks to me that you would not waste time refuting Philip's claims if you were certain it could not work. If you were to do so, would this not be the greater insanity?

[sarkeizen]

I'll assume you are talking to me.

and your insane claims that it cannot work and your obsession to show that it cannot!

Please cite a claim I have made and demonstrate how it is insane.   You will probably ignore this because you will lose if you try because....well...you suck at making a cogent argument.

Where is this different?

In the fact that you're wrong.

One has learned from the past without exception and one has learned from the past with exception?

You know what would be a good example of someone learning from the past?  You admitting you're wrong about being able to write a program which can deterministically determine if an arbitrary program will terminate? 

It looks to me that you would not waste time refuting Philip's claims if you were certain it could not work.

Which claims? What degree of certainty? Why do you get to decide what is a waste of my time?

The main amount of refutation of Philip I've done is present some argument based on information theory.  How certain am I?  Pretty certain, assuming Philip's machine works the way he says it does.  If it doesn't well I can't very well refute an argument which has not been presented.  Now Philip could respond and clarify what he means and even refute what I've presented but the truth appears to be that he knows less than zero about information theory.  His main other claims are about his ability to earn a million dollars from Buddink.  Again, how certain was I?  Pretty certain but he made it easy but specifying a ridiculous time frame.  I appear to be right.  Other than that what further claims has Philip made?  Dates?  He has failed meeting his deadlines in just about every useful way.  I'm not sure if those are really claims per se.  Philip has shown himself to be a pretty terrible project manager so the idea that terrible project managers miss deadlines isn't exactly unexpected.

Anyway if you actually read this thread you'll see that I spend the majority of my time NOT refuting Philip.  He has nothing to say about my original argument probably because he doesn't understand it nor does he want to.  So your argument falls flat.  Most of my time is spent talking to you lot.  For example...

How you irrationally cling to exactly the same amount of confidence in Philip as you did when this thread started.
How you can't stand having him called a bad manager.
How you can't believe one of the more famous proofs in computer science.
How you defend him offering pr0n.
How nobody can stand up and say: "You think you can get $1m in a few months by earning $1 per caricature are you nuts?".
How you try to twist just about anything published by anyone into something validating Philip
...and most recently how you invent conspiracy theories about me having some kind of nefarious plan to sink or co-opt Philips non-existent technology.

That is why I keep coming back.  For the never ending freakshow.  Is that a waste of time?  It's better than watching Kitchen Nightmares IMHO.

[lumen]

So, we again can see the obsession leaking through.
The ONLY thread, just think about that!
Over 200 posts in one thread and NONE in any other!
If something is declared false, to continually declare it false afterward does not make it more false, but it does assure oneself that it is still false, right?
It looks to me like doubt showing through.
Just saying.

The Karpen Pile is claimed to be a battery that has provided continuous energy for over 60 years, making it either a supremely effective method of storing energy or a hoax, furthermore some newspapers describe it as a perpetuum mobile, but most scientists disagree since such a device would violate the Second law of Thermodynamics. The device is housed at the Dimitrie Leonida National Technical Museum, and by 2010 it had been working there continuously for 60 years.

[sarkeizen]

The ONLY thread, just think about that!
Over 200 posts in one thread and NONE in any other!

Why do you think this is significant? You can't seem to say...if you were to provide a hypothesis, and the evidence you think supports it then we could see how well it stands up to scrutiny.  I do understand that you might want to avoid having your argument crushed as you're probably still a little sore from having your ego bruised in the thread about program termination. 

Speaking of which it's worth noting that a good portion of those 200 posts were spent attempting to convince one lumen of that very thing.  Which he still seems to not accept.   Even though if any piece of code existed which could do what he says.  It could be incorporated into another program and the output inverted.   This is not, as that stupid kid who's name I can't be bothered to look up thought resolvable by a single optimization because that would be essentially a different program and *that* program could be incorporated...etc...
'
Somehow in lumen-land that conversation makes me obsessed with proving Philip wrong rather than someone who simply has a certain degree of awe and wonder (and amusement) at people who are so deliberately dense.

If something is declared false, to continually declare it false afterward does not make it more false, but it does assure oneself that it is still false, right?

Is there any knowledge in your head that isn't some cheap, poorly understood platitude?

Saying that I'm just declaring something false isn't really a very accurate description of what's happening.  I'm *arguing* that various things are true or false.  Further argument can in fact make a position stronger.  Of course what's also happening here is that various people are arguing various stupid things (such as you and program termination) and I'm correcting them.  In which case sometimes things get repeated but often to respond to a particular argument like say when someone says that I must be a secret agent for the Oil companies and I say "I'm just here for laughs" and recount the arguments I found the most entertaining from this thread.

It looks to me like doubt showing through.

I thought you said it was a sign of my secret plot to "steel" quenco?  Would I try to "steel" quenco if I had significant doubts?

The Karpen Pile is claimed

...and the rules about claiming something are far weaker than building something.

[lumen]

From your reply it looks like, given a choice, you would rather talk about insulting people than their ideas.

Yes, the Karpen pile is a 60 year old claim, and always will be, because everyone finds it much easier to just look the other way.

2LOT was broken over 60 years ago, you just never saw that, and never will.