For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Olcott, you are a fucking idiot.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 8:58 pm You just don't have an actual clue do you?
I NEVER mentioned ANYTHING about loops.
You cannot possibly ground any rebuttal of my work in any completeSkepdick wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 9:08 pmOlcott, you are a fucking idiot.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 8:58 pm You just don't have an actual clue do you?
I NEVER mentioned ANYTHING about loops.
I've seen your source code/strategy.
You are hung up on execution trace analysis. Your misunderstanding is so deeply profound I can't be bothered.
You are absolutely incapable of abstract reasoning.
I can ground the rebuttal of any of your work in a computational model that's more powerful than the one you are using.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 9:41 pm You cannot possibly ground any rebuttal of my work in any complete
and consistent reasoning. I suspect that you already know this.
I am saying that you lack the knowledge to form a clear and complete rebuttal of my work.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 5:23 amI can ground the rebuttal of any of your work in a computational model that's more powerful than the one you are using.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 9:41 pm You cannot possibly ground any rebuttal of my work in any complete
and consistent reasoning. I suspect that you already know this.
This is a trivial fact of computation. A more powerful computer can solve the halting problem for all less powerful computers.
I am saying that I have more knowledge than you, hence your work is rebuttedPeteOlcott wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:03 amI am saying that you lack the knowledge to form a clear and complete rebuttal of my work.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 5:23 amI can ground the rebuttal of any of your work in a computational model that's more powerful than the one you are using.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 9:41 pm You cannot possibly ground any rebuttal of my work in any complete
and consistent reasoning. I suspect that you already know this.
This is a trivial fact of computation. A more powerful computer can solve the halting problem for all less powerful computers.
If you had the knowledge to provide a clear, consistent and complete rebuttal of my work you already would have.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:37 amI am saying that I have more knowledge than you, hence your work is rebuttedPeteOlcott wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:03 amI am saying that you lack the knowledge to form a clear and complete rebuttal of my work.
Correct. As I already did.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:42 amIf you had the knowledge to provide a clear, consistent and complete rebuttal of my work you already would have.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:37 amI am saying that I have more knowledge than you, hence your work is rebuttedPeteOlcott wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:03 am
I am saying that you lack the knowledge to form a clear and complete rebuttal of my work.
I know that you never did because I know that no one ever did.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:44 amCorrect. As I already did.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:42 amIf you had the knowledge to provide a clear, consistent and complete rebuttal of my work you already would have.
Please show me the source code for the decider which distinguishes true from false assumptions.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:59 am I know that you never did because I know that no one ever did.
What I usually see is a list of false assumptions.
Code: Select all
[1] pry(main)> def ≡(x,y)
if [true, false].permutation.to_a.include?([x,y])
return true
else
return x == y
end
=> :≡
[2] pry(main)> ≡(true, false)
=> true
[3] pry(main)> ≡(1,2)
=> false
[4] pry(main)> ≡("a","a")
=> true