On Sunday, 14 August 2022 at 23:50:44 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> It isn't a number, it is the abstraction o fa number, just like your
> beach is an abstraction of a beach, so it get abstract bound.
Wheee is this “bound” what is it bounded by?

> You lose, even of you don't accept it.
With that attitude you lose even when you win.

On Monday, 15 August 2022 at 00:09:17 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 15:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
> > I agree 100%
> >
> > Infinity is NOT a number.
> >
> > > infinity - 1 = infinity -2
> > > infinity = infinity
> > No this is wrong
> >
> > Infinity is NOT a number! You can not subtract numbers from
> > non-numbers! You can subtract numbers from numbers.
> > You can subtract infinity from infinity.
> >
> > Therefore..,
> >
> > infinity - 1 = infinity - 2
> > -1 + 2 = infinity - infinity
> > 1 = 0
> WRONG. infinity - infinity = UNDEFINED.
I agree with you 100%

infinity - 1 = infinity - 2
1 = infinity - infinity
1 = UNDEFINED

Your number system is broken.

On 8/14/22 7:33 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Sunday, 14 August 2022 at 23:47:56 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Because you asked for a concrete number
> I didn’t. I asked for a number. I didn’t say it has to be concrete.

So you accept the value "A Finite Number"?

After all, if you don't need a concrete number you must accept an
abstract number, and a finite number is a perferctly fine abstract number.

>
>> , and didn't SAY it was an abstract beach, just an unspecified beach.
> Obviously it is an abstract beach! Do you see any beaches around here?!

There is a difference between an unspefied beach and an abstract beach.

>
>> Of Course the upper bound of an abstract entity is an abstract value.
> I know! What is that abstract value?

A finite number.

>
>> YOU were the one to make the concrete out of the sand
> Nonsense! It is an abstract sand.

so we get abstract concrete.

>
>> Note, the "Abstract" isn't just an unspecified, it is the abstraction
>> of, removing many of the specifics, and adding generalizations and
>> interactions.
> That is precisely what I did!
>
> I left only the relevant parts. The finite sand, the finite beach and the finite universe.
>
> I have told you nothing about the cocktails on that beach.

so the answer of a finite number is a perfectly correct answer.

Since it is just the abstract concept of a beach, it doesn't HAVE a
specific size or number of gfains of sand.

If it did, that would imply that ALL beaches have exactly that much of
it too.

>
>> You don't have *A* abstract beach, you have the abstract property of
>> something being a beach.
> So my abstract property (of being a beach) has an abstract property (of being finite).

Yep.

>
>> This just shows you don't really understand what Abstraction is.
> Yeah. You keep lying about that.

But it sure seems to be true.

>
>> I will have to ask what that means since you have already shown that you
>> don't treat logic per the standard rules.
> There are no standard rules. You haven’t produced any.
>
> I am starting to think you are lying about those too.

I don't want to spoil you fun.

>
>> Normally A is the same as A, but I am not sure about what you mean.
> That is SOOOOO strange!?
>
> I have entered “A” == “А” in my standard Python interpreter using the standard rules of logic.
> And it told me it is false.

Maybe you have a broken computer then,

Mine says

>>> "A" == "A"
True

So, I guess more is broken in your system then I thought.

(or are you being deceptive and using Unicode hacks?)

>
> What is going on with your “standard system” and “standard” rules?!?!
>
>> Some Abstract number.
> That is all you can tell me?!?
>
> How does this number behave? Is it small? Is it large? How small or large could it be relative to other objects in the Abstract Universe of Mathematics?!

Since we only know it is an abstract beach, we don't know a lot about
its value.

Since I don't know many Theorems in MATHEMATICS that depend on Beaches,
I'm not sure why you think this is an important limitation.

>
>> Since you just implied that abstract concepts must hae less information
>> than a concrete example, you obviously don't understand how they interact.
> You are lying again.

Nope, the fact that you still seem to think that the concrete example
always has more infromation in it then the abstract case it was built
on, you show you don't understand.

>
>> I didn't. That is you just not understanding.
> You are lying again.

Nope.

>
> You have been nagging me to define my “non-standard” terms for days.

And until you do I have the right to interprete them the way I want.

>
>> An abstractiom can EASILY have a lot more information in it then a given
>> example.
> Sounds like you have absolutely no idea what information is and how it works.
>
> That is the root cause of most undecidability - the information simply isn’t there.
> So the computer keeps searching forever.

Nope, I fully understand the concept of information.

Yes, looking for an answer that the data isn't there can get you into an
infinite loop.

Just like you thinking that a beach of unspecfied size as a nemerical
value for the number of grains of sand in it. The information for that
answer isn't there.

>
>>>> Depends on the space.
>>> Well, can you at least give me a lower and an upper bound?
>> No, because it depends on the space.
> No it doesn’t. I am asking you an abstract question.
>
> How small or large can spaces be?

As big or as small as they need, normally as long as it if finite.

If you want more details, you need to give more.

>
>> If you want an exact number, about 10^17, which is a finite number.
>> (assuming the beach is on Earth, since you can't pay for travel to
>> another planet yet).
> Why do you keep making wrong assumptions even after I have informed you that the beach is not on Earth?

You didn't say that at first.

Do you even know that a "beach" exists on some other planet?

Note, you asked if *I* could count it in 10 minutes, that means you need
to be able to get *ME* there.

Otherwise you are building a framework on a false premise, which doesn't
work.

>
>>> At what speed do you need to count in order to get the counting done in 10 minutes?
>> To be sure, we need no more than 10^17 grains per second for a beach on
>> Earth.
> You don’t seem very smart.
>
> The abstract beach is not on Earth.

Ok, so can you get me there in 10 minutes?

If so, you need to tell NASA how to do this.

If not, seems you have an impossible premise in your system.

>
>> We can't get to an "Abstract Planet" so we can't make that Concrete.
> You can’t tell me how large or small an abstract finite number can get.
> You can’t tell me how large or small an abstract space can get.
>
> Do you even know how to work with abstract quantities?!?

Yep, and you get numbers as good as you define the abstractins.

Nothing in, normally gets you nothing out.
>
>
>>> Shame. Are you struggling with abstraction?!?
>>>
>>> An infinitely fast and an infinitesimaly slow CPU are within range.
>> Not infinitely fast. A few rules of Physics get in our way.
> Shame. Are you struggling with abstraction?!?
>
> The rules of Physics don’t apply in our Abstract universe.

Then you allow me to count at infinite grain per second?
>
>>>> So you don't know what you are asking about in the first place.
>>> Why are you lying?
>> I'm not, you are.
> And now you are lying about me lying.
>
> Have you no shame, you fucking despicable twat.

Are you sure about that? Who should people belive, the admitted dick
that doesn't know his fundamentals, or the person trying to teach him.

>
>> No, you are. You need to make the sand into concrete to get your answer.
> Ok! So go to a fucking abstract universe with an abstract beach with concrete sand and start counting!
>
> Or do you want me to make the sand, the beach AND the universe concrete also?!?

Well send it over so I can count it.

>
>> You are just proving you don't understand what "Abstract" actually is.
> Stop lying, you fucking twat.

Just proves it.

>
>> You don't have a "abstract thing" that could be concrete.
> Stop lying, you fucking twat!

Just proves it.

>
> Every single mathematical abstraction can be reified and made concrete in symbols.

maybe, but without the definition of the abstraction, you don't know
what you can do with those sybmols, so it doesn't do you any good.

>
>>> That's not the beach I asked you about.
>> How do you know? IT is a beach, and you were asking in the abstract.
> How do I know?!? Because the abstract beach is in my head! I created it!

If you created it, then it is concrete.

>
>> Don't I get to make it concrete.
> OK! Let’s make it concrete.
>
> Let B be the abstract beach we are talking about.

Ok, then their are Grains(B) sand grains.

>
>
>> Sometimes there is more data in the concrete example, and sometimes
>> there is more data in the Abstract class, so of course it depends.
> Sooo. Your first principles have nothing to say about which one is the default?

Why does one of those need to be a default? Not everything has an
absolute answer, some things depend on context. Questions of Information
tends to be like that.

On 8/14/22 7:38 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Sunday, 14 August 2022 at 23:50:44 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> It isn't a number, it is the abstraction o fa number, just like your
>> beach is an abstraction of a beach, so it get abstract bound.
> Wheee is this “bound” what is it bounded by?

It is bounded by some finite value, one which we do not know because we
don't have enough information.

>
>> You lose, even of you don't accept it.
> With that attitude you lose even when you win.

So, you are just admitting that you lost.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 16:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, 15 August 2022 at 00:09:17 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 15:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
> > > I agree 100%
> > >
> > > Infinity is NOT a number.
> > >
> > > > infinity - 1 = infinity -2
> > > > infinity = infinity
> > > No this is wrong
> > >
> > > Infinity is NOT a number! You can not subtract numbers from
> > > non-numbers! You can subtract numbers from numbers.
> > > You can subtract infinity from infinity.
> > >
> > > Therefore..,
> > >
> > > infinity - 1 = infinity - 2
> > > -1 + 2 = infinity - infinity
> > > 1 = 0
> > WRONG. infinity - infinity = UNDEFINED.
> I agree with you 100%
>
> infinity - 1 = infinity - 2
> 1 = infinity - infinity
> 1 = UNDEFINED
>
> Your number system is broken.

It isn't my number system and, again, infinity is a concept not a
number.

/Flibble

On Monday, 15 August 2022 at 18:37:53 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> It isn't my number system and, again, infinity is a concept not a
> number.
"undefined" is also a concept, not a number.

Yet here you are. Saying things like "infinity - infinity = undefined"

On Monday, 15 August 2022 at 03:17:38 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Wheee is this “bound” what is it bounded by?
> It is bounded by some finite value, one which we do not know because we don't have enough information.
But finite values are unbounded!

So what you are effectively saying is "It's bounded by an unbound(ed) value"

You are such a genius, I wonder why they even let you on the Short Bus.

> >> You lose, even of you don't accept it.
> > With that attitude you lose even when you win.
> So, you are just admitting that you lost.
Can you even English?

I am not admitting tha I lost.
I am admitting that you won.

Loser.

On 8/5/2022 7:36 PM, Newberry wrote:
> Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Newberry <newberryxy@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Newberry <newberryxy@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> C_k(unsigned int n) {
>>>>>       A(n,n);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> C_s() {
>>>>>       C_k(s);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> // If A(n,m) halts then C_n(m) does NOT halt.
>>>>> A(unsigned int n, unsigned int m) {
>>>>
>>>> You need to change programming language.  The comment refers to C_n in
>>>> the context of n being an unsigned int.  That is, C_n is talked
>>>> about as
>>>> if it is a family of functions, but the two you written out are just
>>>> functions with an underscore in the name (and they have different types
>>>> so C_k and C_s can not both be the same kind of function as the C_n).
>>>>
>>>> In a language with higher-order function you would, I think, be able to
>>>> say what you want to say.
>>>
>>> You can declare C_s(unsigned int n), and let C_s() ignore the
>>> parameter.
>>
>> But you didn't.  And even if you did, that does not address the main
>> problem.  But as I have said before, a discussion is only possible when
>> both parties want to be understood.  I don't think you want to be
>> understood or you would not have confused part of C function name (the n
>> in C_n(m)) with a run-time parameter (the n in A(n,m)).
>>
>>> The point is that each C_n() has memory address.
>>
>> My point is that there is no "each C_n" in C.  C_n is one function with
>> one address.  Do you really not know any programming languages where you
>> can express the notion of a family of function?  Using C (and old and
>> buggy C at that) means you have to fake things with globals.  You may be
>> saying something interesting, but who's going to grub about in undefined
>> old-fashioned C code to find out?
>>
>>> URM programs do not have any types.
>>
>> Where you not writing C?  It looked like C.
>>
>>> Function types have nothing to do with this.
>>
>> The types were a side issue, but the only issue you chose to respond to.
>> There's a bigger problem, but that does not seem to bother you.
>>
>>> You are diverting attention from the relevant to the irrelevant. The
>>> program compiles, runs, and gives the right answer.
>>
>> It has no main so how can it give any answer at all?
>>
>
> Here n is an index, and for each n, C_n is a different function. I am
> expressing this "family" of functions only in a comment. The program is
> a skeleton, and a full version would have many different distinct
> functions.

Can you look at this?

*Simulating Halt Decider Applied to the Halting Theorem*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Simulating_Halt_Decider_Applied_to_the_Halting_Theorem

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer