laklak wrote:It's like deja vu all over again.

I prefer peanut M-'n-Ms, the unpeanuted ones are just repackaged Smarties and I've always loathed Smarties. The only candy I despised more, well, a few - candy corn, Necco wafers, circus "peanuts", and those horrid little plasticky pumpkins old people used to give you on Halloween.

But Mom, I don't WANT to go to the retirement home to trick-or-treat, those old ladies always want a hug and they have crappy candy. Now stop it, they LOVE seeing you kids all dressed up!

Just A Theory wrote:Randall Munroe has answered this question comprehensively

newolder wrote:It turns out halts(g) is not computable for all g() so we fucked off back home.

scherado wrote:

newolder wrote:It turns out halts(g) is not computable for all g() so we fucked off back home.

So sad for the folks "back home."

My most memorable graduate course was one where it took the entire course to describe a method (machine) that would determine what is computable (and what is not). On the last day of the course the professor taught the class that she promised would answer the question. I think my jaw hit the ground. It took the entire course to do it and the women--old and crusty--was brilliant. We learned the Turing Machine (Alan Turing ). The text-book is in a house where I can't ge it!

Here are two chapters from On Computable Numbers, With An Application To The ENTSCHEIDUNGSPROBLEM, By Turing, that seems to be what I was taught in this graduate class. Essentially, what we did was learned how to determine when an algorithm is calculable by a machine--the computer.

6. The universal computing machine.
7. Detailed description of the universal machine.

scherado wrote:

newolder wrote:It turns out halts(g) is not computable for all g() so we fucked off back home.

So sad for the folks "back home."

My most memorable graduate course was one where it took the entire course to describe a method (machine) that would determine what is computable (and what is not). On the last day of the course the professor taught the class that she promised would answer the question. I think my jaw hit the ground. It took the entire course to do it and the women--old and crusty--was brilliant. We learned the Turing Machine (Alan Turing ). The text-book is in a house where I can't ge it!

Here are two chapters from On Computable Numbers, With An Application To The ENTSCHEIDUNGSPROBLEM, By Turing, that seems to be what I was taught in this graduate class. Essentially, what we did was learned how to determine when an algorithm is calculable by a machine--the computer.

6. The universal computing machine.
7. Detailed description of the universal machine.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

scherado wrote:

newolder wrote:It turns out halts(g) is not computable for all g() so we fucked off back home.

So sad for the folks "back home."

My most memorable graduate course was one where it took the entire course to describe a method (machine) that would determine what is computable (and what is not). On the last day of the course the professor taught the class that she promised would answer the question. I think my jaw hit the ground. It took the entire course to do it and the women--old and crusty--was brilliant. We learned the Turing Machine (Alan Turing ). The text-book is in a house where I can't ge it!

Here are two chapters from On Computable Numbers, With An Application To The ENTSCHEIDUNGSPROBLEM, By Turing, that seems to be what I was taught in this graduate class. Essentially, what we did was learned how to determine when an algorithm is calculable by a machine--the computer.

6. The universal computing machine.
7. Detailed description of the universal machine.

So, not only has your trolling not improved, you've gone completely off-topic as well.

laklak wrote:And fuck off with your elegant, recursive solutions, some numbnuts is going to have to maintain your garbage elegance later so make damn sure you comment the hell out of your code.

Code: Select all

(* Can't help about the shape I'm in
I can't sing, I ain't pretty and my legs are thin
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to *)

exception ListLengthMismatchException;

fun repeats(source, counts) =
    let fun dupe( elt, cnt) =
        if cnt = 0 then [] else elt::dupe(elt, cnt - 1)
    in
        if (length source) <> (length counts) then
            raise ListLengthMismatchException
        else
        case (source, counts) of
            ([],[]) => []
            | (hs::[],hc::[]) => dupe(hs, hc)
            | (hs::ts,hc::tc) => dupe(hs, hc) @ repeats(ts, tc)
    end;


scherado wrote:We require the ability to measure the volume of a liquid down to the molecular count to be able to think about being presented with a glass half-full/empty.

scherado wrote:Is the glass half full or half empty?

Neither you dumb bleep, it's never one or other, always, forevermore.

scherado wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

scherado wrote:

newolder wrote:It turns out halts(g) is not computable for all g() so we fucked off back home.

So sad for the folks "back home."

My most memorable graduate course was one where it took the entire course to describe a method (machine) that would determine what is computable (and what is not). On the last day of the course the professor taught the class that she promised would answer the question. I think my jaw hit the ground. It took the entire course to do it and the women--old and crusty--was brilliant. We learned the Turing Machine (Alan Turing ). The text-book is in a house where I can't ge it!

Here are two chapters from On Computable Numbers, With An Application To The ENTSCHEIDUNGSPROBLEM, By Turing, that seems to be what I was taught in this graduate class. Essentially, what we did was learned how to determine when an algorithm is calculable by a machine--the computer.

6. The universal computing machine.
7. Detailed description of the universal machine.

So, not only has your trolling not improved, you've gone completely off-topic as well.

In case you haven't noticed and it is ostensibly true that you have not.

scherado wrote:The question has been...broached if not answered outright. You missed it?

We require the ability to measure the volume of a liquid down to the molecular count to be able to think about being presented with a glass half-full/empty.

Is the glass half full or half empty?

Neither you dumb bleep, it's never one or other, always, forevermore.

scherado wrote:

newolder wrote:It turns out halts(g) is not computable for all g() so we fucked off back home.

So sad for the folks "back home."

My most memorable graduate course was one where it took the entire course to describe a method (machine) that would determine what is computable (and what is not). On the last day of the course the professor taught the class that she promised would answer the question. I think my jaw hit the ground. It took the entire course to do it and the women--old and crusty--was brilliant. We learned the Turing Machine (Alan Turing ). The text-book is in a house where I can't ge it!

Here are two chapters from On Computable Numbers, With An Application To The ENTSCHEIDUNGSPROBLEM, By Turing, that seems to be what I was taught in this graduate class. Essentially, what we did was learned how to determine when an algorithm is calculable by a machine--the computer.

6. The universal computing machine.
7. Detailed description of the universal machine.

scherado wrote:We require the ability to measure the volume of a liquid down to the molecular count to be able to think about being presented with a glass half-full/empty.

Thommo wrote:

scherado wrote:We require the ability to measure the volume of a liquid down to the molecular count to be able to think about being presented with a glass half-full/empty.

That doesn't seem right. I don't believe that you have the ability to measure the volume of a liquid by accurate molecular count, yet here you are claiming you're thinking about half full and half empty glasses.
...

scherado wrote:...
We require the ability to measure the volume of a liquid down to the molecular count [in order] to be able to think about being presented with a glass half-full/empty....

scherado wrote:

Thommo wrote:

scherado wrote:We require the ability to measure the volume of a liquid down to the molecular count to be able to think about being presented with a glass half-full/empty.

That doesn't seem right. I don't believe that you have the ability to measure the volume of a liquid by accurate molecular count, yet here you are claiming you're thinking about half full and half empty glasses.
...

I changed the crucial sentence to this:

scherado wrote:...
We require the ability to measure the volume of a liquid down to the molecular count [in order] to be able to think about being presented with a glass half-full/empty....

Now, I've read your response and it appears that you've made some progress towards understanding.

laklak wrote:Then there's Avocado's number

Cito di Pense wrote:

laklak wrote:Then there's Avocado's number

That would relate to the Guaca Mole of any pure substance. I'm sure scherado will soon tell us about the Pure Substance, probably with lyrics from Yes.

Blackadder wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

laklak wrote:Then there's Avocado's number

That would relate to the Guaca Mole of any pure substance. I'm sure scherado will soon tell us about the Pure Substance, probably with lyrics from Yes.

Yes, but can you MEASURE the Guaca Mole? You may need to hire a refried bean-counter.