3 ms·
On standard machine architectures Yes, right there you are demonstrating a deep misunderstanding of what you are replying to or how it relates to Kurzweil's ar
by dasht 16y ago
On standard machine architectures
Yes, right there you are demonstrating a deep misunderstanding of what you are replying to or how it relates to Kurzweil's arguments.
On Omega, you say: all that is necessary is that the programs from A have to be lost in a much larger sea of valid programs in B
You left out that we're comparing sets of A and B programs of similar length -- the "sea" is not so large. Actually you kind of acknowledge this but then say bogus things about what it implies.
You are confused or else just b.s.'ing on purpose. It's been fun. We're done, please.
- btilly 16y agoYou know, your response is basically content free insults. We know that you think I have a deep misunderstanding, but you haven't specified what said misunderstanding is. You say I'm saying bogus things, but you haven't said what was bogus. And you really haven't tried to explain your reasoning. You left out that we're comparing sets of A and B programs of similar length -- the "sea" is not so large. Actually you kind of acknowledge this but then say bogus things about what it implies. In this case "similar" was "differs by a constant". Thanks to exponential growth, even if said constant is something small like 50 bytes, the pool of programs on machine B would be 2^400 times as big as the pool of programs on machine A. That's about a factor of 10^120. If you think that a factor 2582249878086908589655919172003011874329705792829223512830659356540647622016841194629645353280137831435903171972747493376 difference is "not so large", then you've got a very different impression of what "large" means than most people do. Anyways now I think we're going around in circles. Unless you make a point of some substance in your next reply, I'm not going to bother replying. And no, insults do not count as points.