boring discussion about life [locked]

Kharay1977:

registered on 2010-06-01 05:22:06 pm.

view all posts by Kharay1977

Kharay1977

2010-07-12 05:40:18 pm

Quote from J_SNAKE:

I also think that the understanding of certain things does not entirely rely on the communication partner, some things are difficult by nature.

I said: to make yourself understood.

tomatobob:

registered on 2004-03-27 12:44:30 am.

Gender: male

Location: O'er yon hill

view all posts by tomatobob

tomatobob

2010-07-12 05:59:24 pm

Never stressed

You know, the whole domino thing doesn't seem as confusing as you guys are making it. It's just playing dominoes with an added dimension and a more specific set of rules, posing the question: Could you, given infinite dominoes, fill an infinite space while obeying this given set of rules?

What this "life being computational" stuff is and what this has to do with it I don't know, maybe something about making an artificial life form that would react to the issue as a human would instead of how an AI would. And if either reaction would effect its being 'alive' in human terms.

A computer could go on and on laying out the dominoes into eternity, if that's what it is programmed to do, certainly. A person could not, the ability to do so exist may exist, but a human would get bored or distracted before long. They have other needs to fill and will do so over playing out the endless game of dominoes.

That's what it sounds like to me anyway, and I'll admit that I haven't really read much other thread besides the past page or so.

Quote from Kharay1977:

Someone obviously needs some more NSFW sites then. Wink

Why would I need those when I've got urmom around?

You know, the whole domino thing doesn't seem as confusing as you guys are making it. It's just playing dominoes with an added dimension and a more specific set of rules, posing the question: Could you, given infinite dominoes, fill an infinite space while obeying this given set of rules?

What this "life being computational" stuff is and what this has to do with it I don't know, maybe something about making an artificial life form that would react to the issue as a human would instead of how an AI would. And if either reaction would effect its being 'alive' in human terms.

A computer could go on and on laying out the dominoes into eternity, if that's what it is programmed to do, certainly. A person could not, the ability to do so exist may exist, but a human would get bored or distracted before long. They have other needs to fill and will do so over playing out the endless game of dominoes.

That's what it sounds like to me anyway, and I'll admit that I haven't really read much other thread besides the past page or so.

[quote="Kharay1977"]Someone obviously needs some more NSFW sites then. :wink:[/quote]
Why would I need those when I've got urmom around?

Kharay1977:

registered on 2010-06-01 05:22:06 pm.

view all posts by Kharay1977

Kharay1977

2010-07-12 06:02:50 pm

Quote from tomatobob:

Why would I need those when I've got urmom around?

That solves the issue then of what your fetish is.

J_SNAKE:

registered on 2010-02-28 06:59:42 am.

view all posts by J_SNAKE

J_SNAKE

Edit history:

J_SNAKE: 2010-07-12 06:10:15 pm

J_SNAKE: 2010-07-12 06:06:12 pm

2010-07-12 06:05:54 pm

So how do you perceive it when someone is asking you 'is life computational?'. It is not common language everone can be familiar with. You need to shape a feeling and certain understanding for the word 'computational'. The problem is just that it has nothing to do with English. The word itself is not 'regular' and requires certain training and knowledge to be understood. It hits the nail on the top when I say 'not computational', most will naivly assume to know what that means without having an understanding about it. To understand what 'not computational' means you have at least understand something like the domino-problem I repeated all over. See, that is why I quickly know whether someone is interested in the subject or just enjoys surficial talk. When someone is interested in the actual subject he will say 'Wait, what does computational mean?' since that is the interesting focus:)

Yes, the domino-game-rules can be understood by our urmom, a stone just has 4 individual numbers, thats all to it. I try to keep it as simple as possible.
But the consequences are the interesting part and not so trivial.

So how do you perceive it when someone is asking you 'is life computational?'. It is not common language everone can be familiar with. You need to shape a feeling and certain understanding for the word 'computational'. The problem is just that it has nothing to do with English. The word itself is not 'regular' and requires certain training and knowledge to be understood. It hits the nail on the top when I say 'not computational', most will naivly assume to know what that means without having an understanding about it. To understand what 'not computational' means you have at least understand something like the domino-problem I repeated all over. See, that is why I quickly know whether someone is interested in the subject or just enjoys surficial talk. When someone is interested in the actual subject he will say 'Wait, what does computational mean?' since that is the interesting focus:)

Yes, the domino-game-rules can be understood by our urmom, a stone just has 4 individual numbers, thats all to it. I try to keep it as simple as possible. 
But the consequences are the interesting part and not so trivial.

Kharay1977:

registered on 2010-06-01 05:22:06 pm.

view all posts by Kharay1977

Kharay1977

Edit history:

Kharay1977: 2010-07-12 06:24:42 pm

2010-07-12 06:20:43 pm

You fail to see the point I was making. I wasn't talking about your question, I was talking about you. You cannot make yourself understood coherently.

And you continue to assume you somehow know more than we do.

Quote from J_SNAKE:

It hits the nail on the top when I say 'not computational', most will naivly assume to know what that means without having an understanding about it.

Why would you assume that people will naively assume to know what it means? Why is it so inconceivable to you that someone else actually does know what you are talking about? I will ask you again - are you really that blind in your arrogance?

Quote from J_SNAKE:

When someone is interested in the actual subject he will say 'Wait, what does computational mean?'

No, he will not automatically say that. Because, he or she might actually know what you are talking about. Once again, you assume you know things we don't know. I am sorry to say, J_SNAKE, but I personally know a great many things about a great many subjects. As do many other people here on M2K2. You are mistaken in your assumption that we are somehow inferior to you. And that is your very naive assumption.

You fail to see the point I was making. I wasn't talking about your question, I was talking about you. You cannot make yourself understood coherently.

And you continue to assume you somehow know more than we do.[quote="J_SNAKE"]It hits the nail on the top when I say 'not computational', most will naivly assume to know what that means without having an understanding about it.[/quote]Why would you assume that people will naively assume to know what it means? Why is it so inconceivable to you that someone else actually [i]does[/i] know what you are talking about? I will ask you again - are you [i]really[/i] that blind in your arrogance?[quote="J_SNAKE"]When someone is interested in the actual subject he will say 'Wait, what does computational mean?'[/quote]No, he will not automatically say that. Because, he or she might actually know what you are talking about. Once again, you assume you know things [i]we[/i] don't know. I am sorry to say, J_SNAKE, but I personally know a great many things about a great many subjects. As do many other people here on M2K2. You are mistaken in your assumption that we are somehow inferior to you. And [u]that[/u] is [i]your[/i] very naive assumption.

J_SNAKE:

registered on 2010-02-28 06:59:42 am.

view all posts by J_SNAKE

J_SNAKE

2010-07-12 06:27:25 pm

Quote from Kharay1977:

Quote from J_SNAKE:

It hits the nail on the top when I say 'not computational', most will naivly assume to know what that means without having an understanding about it.

Why would you assume that people will naively assume to know what it means? Why is it so inconceivable to you that someone else actually does know what you are talking about? I will ask you again - are you really that blind in your arrogance?

I am a computer scientist. That is how I know it. aiwebs_032

Kharay1977:

registered on 2010-06-01 05:22:06 pm.

view all posts by Kharay1977

Kharay1977

2010-07-12 06:33:17 pm

Quote from J_SNAKE:

I am a computer scientist. That is how I know it. aiwebs_032

That is how you know the subject, yes. It is not how you know that others don't know the subject. Not only are you not the only computer scientist in the world, there are a good number of people here on M2K2 that are actually quite knowledgeable on IT/ICT/Computer Sciences as well. And, even if they are not, everyone here on M2K2 actually has a very well functioning brain. We're all quite intelligent in here.

Tell me, how do you presume to know what I know and don't know, for example? You keep assuming I don't understand you, that I don't know what you are talking about. How do you know these things? You have no idea who I am, what I am, what I do for a living, what my education was like, what I do with my time when I'm not visiting M2K2. Basically, you have no basis whatsoever to make assumptions on.

So, I am asking you kindly - please start respecting the people here on M2K2.

J_SNAKE:

registered on 2010-02-28 06:59:42 am.

view all posts by J_SNAKE

J_SNAKE

2010-07-12 07:11:35 pm

I have respect to all by default.

How I know you are not willing to listen:

Quote from Kharay1977:

Quote from J_SNAKE:

The domino problem cannot be solved in 2D, it has nothing to do with our current understanding of computing.

Will you finally stop blabbering like an absolute idiot about 2D!

Kharay1977:

registered on 2010-06-01 05:22:06 pm.

view all posts by Kharay1977

Kharay1977

2010-07-12 07:15:44 pm

Quote from J_SNAKE:

I have respect to all by default.

Then you have a very distorted view of what respect means.

Quote from J_SNAKE:

How I know you are not willing to listen:

Put things into perspective please. That was after you had repeated over and over and over and over that I wasn't listening. Throughout several topics. In other words - by the time you had already demonstrated your complete lack of respect for my understanding.

J_SNAKE:

registered on 2010-02-28 06:59:42 am.

view all posts by J_SNAKE

J_SNAKE

Edit history:

J_SNAKE: 2010-07-12 07:28:59 pm

2010-07-12 07:27:40 pm

There is a difference betwween the domino in 1D(2 numbers) and the one in 2D(4 numbers). So did you try to understand the domino-problem at that point? Probably you still haaven't.

I would like to know what your understanding of respect is along with all the acting here, is there also something like respect to the subject?

Kharay1977:

registered on 2010-06-01 05:22:06 pm.

view all posts by Kharay1977

Kharay1977

2010-07-12 07:39:23 pm

Quote from J_SNAKE:

So did you try to understand the domino-problem at that point?

I am not interested in your little domino puzzle.

Quote from J_SNAKE:

Probably you still haaven't.

And off you go assuming things about my intelligence again. I will ask you again - why do you keep assuming I am somehow less intelligent than you are? Really, I am asking, for real. Why do you do that?

Quote from J_SNAKE:

I would like to know what your understanding of respect is along with all the acting here

What acting? And, my understanding of respect? That is a discussion we shouldn't have in this topic

Quote from J_SNAKE:

is there also something like respect to the subject?

Yes, there is. But, you are confusing respect for the subject & question with agreeing with it. The fact people disagree with you does not mean they do not respect the question. Personally, I think it was a very good question to ask. Now, if you only had been willing to listen to me and understand me in the process, you might have actually seen that I did take the question seriously. But, you did not listen to me. You simply kept repeating over and over again that I did not understand the question.

I do understand the subject. Probably a whole lot more than you realize. As I said earlier, I know a great many things about a great many subjects. There is a reason for that.

[quote="J_SNAKE"]So did you try to understand the domino-problem at that point?[/quote]I am not interested in your little domino puzzle.[quote="J_SNAKE"]Probably you still haaven't.[/quote]And off you go assuming things about my intelligence again. I will ask you again - [i]why[/i] do you keep assuming I am somehow less intelligent than you are? Really, I am asking, for real. Why do you do that?[quote="J_SNAKE"]I would like to know what your understanding of respect is along with all the acting here[/quote]What acting? And, my understanding of respect? That is a discussion we shouldn't have in this topic[quote="J_SNAKE"]is there also something like respect to the subject?[/quote]Yes, there is. But, you are confusing respect for the subject & question with agreeing with it. The fact people disagree with you does not mean they do not respect the question. Personally, I think it was a very good question to ask. Now, if you only had been willing to listen to me and understand me in the process, you might have actually seen that I did take the question seriously. But, you did not listen to me. You simply kept repeating over and over again that I did not understand the question.

I [i]do[/i] understand the subject. Probably a whole lot more than you realize. As I said earlier, I know a great many things about a great many subjects. There is a reason for that.

J_SNAKE:

registered on 2010-02-28 06:59:42 am.

view all posts by J_SNAKE

J_SNAKE

Edit history:

J_SNAKE: 2010-07-12 08:09:25 pm

2010-07-12 08:05:47 pm

Quote from Kharay1977:

And off you go assuming things about my intelligence again. I will ask you again - why do you keep assuming I am somehow less intelligent than you are? Really, I am asking, for real. Why do you do that?

I think 'intelligence' is a huge word. I dont dive into it directly. I think the point whether someone is open to see something is necessarily determined by his attitude towards the subject. You act hasty and you also dont carefully read and weight what I have to tell you, unlike you claimed. For me (and every serious computer scientist) it is visible from the beginning that you didnt regard that domino-problem. Thus it is pointless to disagree since you dont know what you are disagreeing on, you see?

So why arent you interested in that domino puzzle? I tried to keep it as simple as possible so you can think about it a bit even when you are not a computer scientist.

Kharay1977:

registered on 2010-06-01 05:22:06 pm.

view all posts by Kharay1977

Kharay1977

2010-07-12 08:13:02 pm

Quote from J_SNAKE:

I think 'intelligence' is a huge word. I dont dive into it directly.

What are you trying to say here? Could you try in your own language? No, I mean that.

Quote from J_SNAKE:

I think the point whether someone is open to see something is necessarily determined by his attitude towards the subject.

Obviously.

Quote from J_SNAKE:

You act hasty and you also dont carefully read and weight what I have to tell you,

Wrong. As it ever occurred to you that:
- I actually simply think fast?
- I think a lot about a lot of things, all the time. So, I may actually have already given your question (you are not the first person to ask it) a lot of thought?
- The question isn't all that complicated to begin with?

Quote from J_SNAKE:

unlike you claimed.

Again, wrong.

Quote from J_SNAKE:

For me (and every serious computer scientist) it is visible from the beginning that you didnt regard that domino-problem.

Because it was irrelevant to the very question. It was too small, the domino problem. It had nothing to do with the theoretical possibility of artificial intelligence and it still doesn't. It is a mathematical conundrum and that is all it is. It has NOTHING to do with computer sciences.

Quote from J_SNAKE:

Thus it is pointless to disagree since you dont know what you are disagreeing on, you see?

Again, your conclusions are all wrong.

Quote from J_SNAKE:

So why arent you interested in that domino puzzle?

See above. I am not interested in it because it has no relevant meaning to the subject.

Quote from J_SNAKE:

I tried to keep it as simple as possible so you can think about it a bit even when you are not a computer scientist.

J_SNAKE, if you continue to insult my intelligence by making hollow assumptions about what I do and do not understand, we are going to have an issue. Really, we are.

[quote="J_SNAKE"]I think 'intelligence' is a huge word. I dont dive into it directly.[/quote]What are you trying to say here? Could you try in your own language? No, I mean that.[quote="J_SNAKE"]I think the point whether someone is open to see something is necessarily determined by his attitude towards the subject.[/quote]Obviously.
[quote="J_SNAKE"]You act hasty and you also dont carefully read and weight what I have to tell you,[/quote]Wrong. As it ever occurred to you that:
- I actually simply think fast?
- I think a lot about a lot of things, all the time. So, I may actually have already given your question (you are not the first person to ask it) a lot of thought?
- The question isn't all that complicated to begin with?
[quote="J_SNAKE"]unlike you claimed.[/quote]Again, wrong.[quote="J_SNAKE"]For me (and every serious computer scientist) it is visible from the beginning that you didnt regard that domino-problem.[/quote]Because it was irrelevant to the very question. It was too small, the domino problem. It had nothing to do with the theoretical possibility of artificial intelligence and it still doesn't. It is a mathematical conundrum and that is all it is. It has NOTHING to do with computer sciences.[quote="J_SNAKE"]Thus it is pointless to disagree since you dont know what you are disagreeing on, you see?[/quote]Again, your conclusions are all wrong.[quote="J_SNAKE"]So why arent you interested in that domino puzzle?[/quote]See above. I am not interested in it because it has no relevant meaning to the subject.[quote="J_SNAKE"]I tried to keep it as simple as possible so you can think about it a bit even when you are not a computer scientist.[/quote]J_SNAKE, if you continue to insult my intelligence by making hollow assumptions about what I do and do not understand, we are going to have an issue. Really, we are.

J_SNAKE:

registered on 2010-02-28 06:59:42 am.

view all posts by J_SNAKE

J_SNAKE

Edit history:

J_SNAKE: 2010-07-12 08:28:28 pm

2010-07-12 08:27:34 pm

Quote from Kharay1977:

Because it was irrelevant to the very question. It was too small, the domino problem. It had nothing to do with the theoretical possibility of artificial intelligence and it still doesn't. It is a mathematical conundrum and that is all it is. It has NOTHING to do with computer sciences.

With that you are saying computability has nothing to do with computer science. As computer scientist I can tell you, you are very wrong.
Why do you think it is irrelevant to the very question and what do you mean with too small? You can have more problems if you go bigger. The question still was 'is life computational?'.

Kharay1977:

registered on 2010-06-01 05:22:06 pm.

view all posts by Kharay1977

Kharay1977

Edit history:

Kharay1977: 2010-07-12 08:34:47 pm

Kharay1977: 2010-07-12 08:33:25 pm

2010-07-12 08:33:02 pm

Quote from J_SNAKE:

With that you are saying computability has nothing to do with computer science.

No, I am not. The domino problem itself has nothing to do with computer sciences. Because it is a mathematical problem. Which is not the same as computer sciences.

Quote from J_SNAKE:

As computer scientist I can tell you, you are very wrong.

You are the one that is mistaken. Again because you are misinterpreting what I say. You think I say A when in fact I said B. Read more carefully.

Quote from J_SNAKE:

Why do you think it is irrelevant to the very question and what do you mean with too small? You can have more problems if you go bigger. The question still was 'is life computational?'.

THAT was the question, yes. The domino puzzle wasn't the question. You just brought that up for... no reason really. And, the question whether life is computational is completely meaningless. They are two very, very different things - life and mathematics. Very different things. And why I said 'too small'?

Let me explain.

There is more to life than mathematics. As such, there is more to artificial life than merely mathematics. You are asking the wrong questions. You need to ask yourself whether a machine can ever be conscious, whether a machine can be self-aware.

[quote="J_SNAKE"]With that you are saying computability has nothing to do with computer science.[/quote]No, I am not. The domino problem itself has nothing to do with computer sciences. Because it is a mathematical problem. Which is not the same as computer sciences.[quote="J_SNAKE"]As computer scientist I can tell you, you are very wrong.[/quote]You are the one that is mistaken. Again because you are misinterpreting what I say. You think I say A when in fact I said B. Read more carefully.[quote="J_SNAKE"]Why do you think it is irrelevant to the very question and what do you mean with too small? You can have more problems if you go bigger. The question still was 'is life computational?'.[/quote]THAT was the question, yes. The domino puzzle wasn't the question. You just brought that up for... no reason really. And, the question whether life is computational is completely meaningless. They are two very, very different things - life and mathematics. Very different things. And why I said 'too small'?

Let me explain.

There is more to life than mathematics. As such, there is more to artificial life than merely mathematics. You are asking the wrong questions. You need to ask yourself whether a machine can ever be conscious, whether a machine can be self-aware.

J_SNAKE:

registered on 2010-02-28 06:59:42 am.

view all posts by J_SNAKE

J_SNAKE

Edit history:

J_SNAKE: 2010-07-12 08:59:35 pm

J_SNAKE: 2010-07-12 08:55:35 pm

J_SNAKE: 2010-07-12 08:54:54 pm

J_SNAKE: 2010-07-12 08:54:32 pm

2010-07-12 08:53:39 pm

Quote from Kharay1977:

No, I am not. The domino problem itself has nothing to do with computer sciences. Because it is a mathematical problem. Which is not the same as computer sciences.

Before Turing came many people struggled how to show the limits of computation. While others constructed theories that went complex and more complex Turing('father of theoretical computer science') instead looked down to the roots of what every computation has in common. He managed to create a simple machine that represents everything that can be computed. While the machine itself has no practical use it can be used to proof computatability. Mathematics are everywhere but to your surprise I can tell you that this domino-problem can be proofed to be not computational by using a turing-machine(most mathematics dont even know turing machines, just heard about them one or two times) and a turing machine represents everything computation can be about. If you can show that no turing machine can do it you have shown it is not computational.

Quote from Kharay1977:

You are asking the wrong questions. You need to ask yourself whether a machine can ever be conscious, whether a machine can be self-aware.

To answer that I think it can probably help to ask first 'is life computational?'.

[quote="Kharay1977"]No, I am not. The domino problem itself has nothing to do with computer sciences. Because it is a mathematical problem. Which is not the same as computer sciences.[/quote] Before Turing came many people struggled how to show the limits of computation. While others constructed theories that went complex and more complex Turing('father of theoretical computer science') instead looked down to the roots of what every computation has in common. He managed to create a simple machine that represents everything that can be computed. While the machine itself has no practical use it can be used to proof computatability. Mathematics are everywhere but to your surprise I can tell you that this domino-problem can be proofed to be not computational by using a turing-machine(most mathematics dont even know turing machines, just heard about them one or two times) and a turing machine represents everything computation can be about. If you can show that no turing machine can do it you have shown it is not computational.

[quote="Kharay1977"]You are asking the wrong questions. You need to ask yourself whether a machine can ever be conscious, whether a machine can be self-aware.[/quote]
To answer that I think it can probably help to ask first 'is life computational?'.

tomatobob:

registered on 2004-03-27 12:44:30 am.

Gender: male

Location: O'er yon hill

view all posts by tomatobob

tomatobob

2010-07-12 09:03:27 pm

Never stressed

I once computed the amount of pie I could eat on a given day, turns out the answer was 'all'. All pies. It was truly astounding.

~the life~

J_SNAKE:

registered on 2010-02-28 06:59:42 am.

view all posts by J_SNAKE

J_SNAKE

2010-07-12 09:10:59 pm

You can emulate computation? nothing special;)

Kharay1977:

registered on 2010-06-01 05:22:06 pm.

view all posts by Kharay1977

Kharay1977

Edit history:

Kharay1977: 2010-07-12 09:14:37 pm

Kharay1977: 2010-07-12 09:12:12 pm

2010-07-12 09:11:08 pm

Quote from J_SNAKE:

... long story about Turing ...

You are making several mistakes there:
- The domino puzzle is a mathematical puzzle. Mathematics are logical problems. Computers are logical. Therefore there are no theoretical limits to which mathematical problems computers can solve. It is just a matter of creating the proper computers for it.
- You are trying to imagine it with current technology. That is another mistake. Computer sciences are, like any other science, constantly evolving, improving. Some things we cannot do now, with computers. But, that is no guarantee that those things will never be possible.

Quote from J_SNAKE:

To answer that I think it can probably help to ask first 'is life computational?'.

I have clearly demonstrated why that question has no meaning. It is an illogical question. Simply because Life does not equal Mathematics.

To restate my point - Stop trying to think about it with current understanding and current technology. With current technology, sure, we probably won't be able to make a conscious machine. But, again, science is an evolving process. We learn new things each day. As a species. Quit being so limited in your imagination. There is simply no limit to what could be possible. Stop being a computer scientist for a second and start being a philosopher.

And because I suspect you will simply keep repeating the same question over and over again and I have no desire to keep giving you the same response over and over again, I am done discussing this with you, J_SNAKE. Simply because you do not possess the ability to imagine.

[quote="J_SNAKE"]... long story about Turing ...[/quote]You are making several mistakes there:
- The domino puzzle is a mathematical puzzle. Mathematics are logical problems. Computers are logical. Therefore there are no theoretical limits to which mathematical problems computers can solve. It is just a matter of creating the proper computers for it.
- You are trying to imagine it with [i]current[/i] technology. That is another mistake. Computer sciences are, like any other science, constantly evolving, improving. Some things we cannot do [i]now[/i], with computers. But, that is no guarantee that those things will never be possible.[quote="J_SNAKE"]To answer that I think it can probably help to ask first 'is life computational?'.[/quote]I have clearly demonstrated why that question has no meaning. It is an illogical question. Simply because Life does not equal Mathematics.

To restate my point - Stop trying to think about it with [i]current[/i] understanding and [i]current[/i] technology. With current technology, sure, we probably won't be able to make a conscious machine. But, again, science is an evolving process. We learn new things each day. As a species. Quit being so limited in your imagination. There is simply no limit to what [i]could[/i] be possible. Stop being a computer scientist for a second and start being a philosopher.

And because I suspect you will simply keep repeating the same question over and over again and I have no desire to keep giving you the same response over and over again, I am done discussing this with you, J_SNAKE. Simply because you do not possess the ability to [i]imagine[/i].

J_SNAKE:

registered on 2010-02-28 06:59:42 am.

view all posts by J_SNAKE

J_SNAKE

Edit history:

J_SNAKE: 2010-07-12 09:29:59 pm

2010-07-12 09:25:10 pm

Quote from Kharay1977:

Quote from J_SNAKE:

... long story about Turing ...

You are making several mistakes there:
- The domino puzzle is a mathematical puzzle. Mathematics are logical problems. Computers are logical. Therefore there are no theoretical limits to which mathematical problems computers can solve. It is just a matter of creating the proper computers for it.

OK, I tell you what mistakes you are making: The science about the limits of computation has nothing to do with the power of machines. Those are problems of theoretical computational science. It can be shown that the domino-problem is not computable, no matter what technology or philosophy you have. It is independent truth. I repeated it again like you can see since you constantly repeat to ignore it.

If you are so convinced about it that this domino-puzzle can be computed it just means you didnt regard it and you dont see the interesting problem in it.

Kharay1977:

registered on 2010-06-01 05:22:06 pm.

view all posts by Kharay1977

Kharay1977

2010-07-12 09:29:09 pm

Quote from J_SNAKE:

I repeated it again like you can see since you constantly repeat to ignore it.

As much as I love being proven right all the time by the ignorance of people such as yourself, I am going to bed now. You bore me with your boundless tenacity to refuse to actually think beyond your limited view of reality.

J_SNAKE:

registered on 2010-02-28 06:59:42 am.

view all posts by J_SNAKE

J_SNAKE

Edit history:

J_SNAKE: 2010-07-12 09:42:34 pm

J_SNAKE: 2010-07-12 09:38:32 pm

J_SNAKE: 2010-07-12 09:35:07 pm

2010-07-12 09:32:31 pm

Now seriously, if you can formally show that something is not computational, you have shown it forever. No technology and philosophy will help you out there.
It is the same with the area of a circle, we know it, no matter what philosophy you have. I fail to see how claiming the opposite is not ignorant.

There are indeed many open questions being very important to computer science. Only what is already proved, that is proved forever.