|
Please stop reposting the same question in multiple places. You already have some feedback in your previous post below. If you have some questions or comments then reply to the people posting the feedback.
|
|
|
|
|
Plus, he already knows the answer; he's only posting to test whether we're as "smart" as him. 
Apparently, he's notorious on other forums as a troll:
Notorious computer science troll, Pete Olcott[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
He reminds me of the Grans Negus and his "plain english" bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
That's because your reputation precedes you.
You don't really discuss. You evaluate the people who respond to you and either discard them, ignore them, or "collect" them, kind of like sports trading cards.
|
|
|
|
|
You're still focused on "the question". At this point, it's irrelevant.
We're focused on YOU and how you treat people. That's why I said your reputation precedes you. Your behavior and treatment of people on other sites killed any discussion you possibly had, and the same is happening here.
Have a nice life.
|
|
|
|
|
A singular point of view. It's easy to go look you up on other sites and read through the threads.
|
|
|
|
|
And you're doing it again. You're using your question as a distraction to prevent you from looking at yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
I already have and I'm not the only one to point this stuff out to you. It's been done on other forums.
|
|
|
|
|
polcott wrote: that I must be wrong without looking at what I actually said
If someone claims that they can prove the sum of angles is not 180 degrees then I am not going to look at what they said.
If someone claims that they have a lossless compression method that can reduce anything down to a couple of bytes I am not going to look at what they said (I have actually seen a claim like that in a forum.)
If someone claims that the world is flat I am not going to look at what they said (I have read articles refuting such claims.)
I do not do that because I have taken the actual educational classes that demonstrate that those claims are false. I actually either did the proofs myself as part of class work or at least did a step by step analysis of the proofs and understood those proofs.
So I do not need to attempt to validate claims by others that they are wrong.
But I already pointed out that if you can prove your contention then write it up and submit it to a real scientific journal.
I also pointed out that if you can do that then there will be significant benefits to you personally by doing so.
So given that then why are you not busy writing up the article?
|
|
|
|
|
polcott wrote: Two people each with masters degrees in computer science
And a heart surgeon promotes homeopathic remedies. So thus those must work?
polcott wrote: He has also agreed that I can quote him on this.
If you are already convinced then why are you posting here?
|
|
|
|
|
polcott wrote: This is the 12th article
I don't care.
There are probably thousands of articles promoting cow urine as a cure for cancer and MBA's in India are presumably producing papers all the time on Astrology since that is a degree program in multiple universities.
What I said was that you should get published in a formal mathematics journal. At a minimal such a journal must not be 'pay per publish'.
|
|
|
|
|
It's a bot.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Probably because of your attitude and behaviour.
|
|
|
|
|
"For those who code" and do not simply pontificate.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Please go back to whatever theoretical cave you crawled out of.
I'll stick to the more practical problems today, thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well big deal; there are plenty of people here who have more, less or the same experience and skills. But unlike you they do not abuse the forums or the people who try to help them.
|
|
|
|
|
You're following your reputation to the letter.
I still don't give a sh*t.
|
|
|
|
|
None of that means anything however in the context of the question.
polcott wrote: I have been a professional C++ software engineer since 2004.
And I learned what you are claiming has been proven to be false in about 1984. I learned the assumptions of the Turing machine and went through multiple proofs associated with it. And a lot more mathematics as well in many other classes.
modified 17-May-23 13:26pm.
|
|
|
|
|
 C'mon Dave don't beat around the bush, tell us how you really feel!
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
polcott wrote: The following code is executed in the x86utm operating system based...
No. You are redefining the problem and then ignoring it when people call it out.
That program specfically represents a problem that was proven mathematically long ago using the Turing machine.
If you want to prove something then you will need to actually provide the same rigor that Turing did. You have not done so.
polcott wrote: calls H(D,D) that simulates D(D) at line 11
You are ignoring that in the proof H() must be defined for ALL POSSIBLE CASES. You do not get to pick and choose what H() does.
polcott wrote: Here is an example of work in this same field:
First what journal was that published in? I can find references to the article but not anything that I see as a journal.
But as I read the paper it does not really support anything that you are saying.
That paper has one specific example. And in fact seems more like an attempt to prove something about a different idiom under test - the "TSR".
The paper provides exactly what they did in detail. So I suggest that you answer your own question by applying exactly what they did in the paper to the code that you provided above.
|
|
|
|
|
polcott wrote: I never was asking the computer science question:
Do you understand the following statements?
You are using an example which has a very specific context - the Turing Machine.
The phrasing indicates you are attempting to change the context, but you have not fully defined the context.
|
|
|
|
|
polcott wrote: Not at all. The code that I wrote is very clearly written in C.
Sigh...again....
The example code originates from Turning Machine math.
If you want to prove something OUTSIDE of the Turing Machine then you must formally define the context then provide the proof from that.
Nothing you have posted here comes even close to be a formal proof.
And I am certainly not going to review anything you have posted elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
I am revoking my license to this
modified 19-May-23 21:16pm.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
