• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Super Artificial Intelligence, a naive approach

Porpoise of Life said:
Simple, your assumption was wrong. Your query is therefore not applicable.

This appears to be your MO: always assume that anything you believe is correct, deny it is a belief, and demand that others subject themselves to your narrow views.
If you are unable to even entertain the idea that you interpreted something incorrectly, this thread is going to go like your other ones, round and round in circles, with you referring back to your hypothesis as if it were proof.
Click to expand...

It had long been demonstrated that instead, that your comrade MikeG had blundered, by giving a nonsensical response (via reply 12) to my query in reply 11.

Ironically you blundered too, by entirely misinterpreting the scenario.
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
The right answer is that your response in reply 12, was nonsensical, and irrelevant to my query in response 11...........
Click to expand...

Ah I see. You don't understand written English. I have repeatedly agreed that this (above) is the case, so you really don't need to go on repeating it. I have also shown you why the mistake was made: your gibberish use of the language makes trying to understand what you are asking much more difficult than it should be. If you choose to use different meanings for words from the rest of us, mistakes in communication are bound to occur.
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
Ah I see. You don't understand written English. I have repeatedly agreed that this (above) is the case, so you really don't need to go on repeating it. I have also shown you why the mistake was made: your gibberish use of the language makes trying to understand what you are asking much more difficult than it should be. If you choose to use different meanings for words from the rest of us, mistakes in communication are bound to occur.
Click to expand...

The more you proceed, the more foolish your words become.

Tell me, what gibberish did you supposedly detect in the response from the reply you admittedly failed to sensibly answer?

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Could you tell us what the error is, with the figures you highlighted?
Click to expand...


What part of the above query did you fail to grasp?
 
Last edited:
OK, no problem.

There was no error in the figures I higlighted despite the claim in your question. My fact (10^14 is one ten thousandth of 10^18) wasn't pointing out an error, so why were you asking about errors?

However, there was an error in your original post, in its misuse of the word pertinent, and it was this error I pointed out. So when you ask about errors I had found in your post, I responded as though you were asking about the errors I had pointed out in your post. Silly me.

Before you respond to this, how about taking a long hard look at the cartoon Mojo has posted.
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
OK, no problem.

There was no error in the figures I higlighted despite the claim in your question. My fact (10^14 is one ten thousandth of 10^18) wasn't pointing out an error, so why were you asking about errors?

However, there was an error in your original post, in its misuse of the word pertinent, and it was this error I pointed out. So when you ask about errors I had found in your post, I responded as though you were asking about the errors I had pointed out in your post. Silly me.

Before you respond to this, how about taking a long hard look at the cartoon Mojo has posted.
Click to expand...

Unless the query "Could you tell us what the error is, with the figures you highlighted?" contains malformed English, Mojo's post does not apply.

And so, your words show lack of understanding of simple language.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Unless the query "Could you tell us what the error is, with the figures you highlighted?" contains malformed English, Mojo's post does not apply.

And so, your words show lack of understanding of simple language.
Click to expand...

You may think that but I expect that most people reading and/or posting on the thread would disagree with you.

MikeG pointed out 2 things in his initial post in this thread:


MikeG said:
So, one ten thousandth the number. Tear up everything we know and re-write the dictionary.
Click to expand...

and....

MikeG said:
Oh, I see we already have. Makie-uppey use of "pertinent".
Click to expand...

For some reason you became fixated on the notion that MikeG was in some way querying the accuracy of the figures you had posted (which AFAIK he was not) rather than the conclusion that you had drawn from them. I think that was pretty clear to almost everyone who has read this thread.

He was also criticising you for your incorrect use of pertinent, something that was clarified in this exchange....

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Could you tell us what the error is, with the figures you highlighted?
Click to expand...

MikeG said:
I already did. You are mis-using "pertinent".
Click to expand...

If there is any criticism due, I guess MikeG should have clarified that there was no error in the figures, the error was in the use of pertinent. He initially did the latter but not the former but subsequently did both.

You, OTOH, still seem fixated on the numbers. In the immortal words of Princess Elsa of Arendelle - "Let it go"

;)
 
The Don said:
You may think that but I expect that most people reading and/or posting on the thread would disagree with you.

MikeG pointed out 2 things in his initial post in this thread:




and....



For some reason you became fixated on the notion that MikeG was in some way querying the accuracy of the figures you had posted (which AFAIK he was not) rather than the conclusion that you had drawn from them. I think that was pretty clear to almost everyone who has read this thread.

He was also criticising you for your incorrect use of pertinent, something that was clarified in this exchange....





If there is any criticism due, I guess MikeG should have clarified that there was no error in the figures, the error was in the use of pertinent. He initially did the latter but not the former but subsequently did both.

You, OTOH, still seem fixated on the numbers. In the immortal words of Princess Elsa of Arendelle - "Let it go"

;)
Click to expand...



You may have missed it, as his comrade did, but he had responded nonsensically to the query in reply 11.

That query asked about his criticism of the numbers, and his response (in reply 12) appeared to be nonsensical/garbage.

He later admitted that his response was garbage. (where he blamed his blunder on my supposed miscommunication)

The blame was clearly misplaced, because my query (in reply 11) had been clear.
 
Last edited:
PGJ, what are you hoping for with these threads? Fame? Recognition? Fortune? Friendship? Admiration? Respect?

I fear that whatever you're hoping for, it won't end well.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
I aim to minimize ignorance...
Click to expand...

This is disingenuous and arrogant tosh. You bring nothing here to illuminate anything. There is no sense in which you are educating anyone. You have no original thought, nor interesting line of discussion for us. There is no meat, and bugger all gravy either. All you have is word-play, and vacuous argument. What exactly do you think this litany of utter failure can do in the fight against ignorance, especially when it is so poorly communicated that it takes pages of to-ing and fro-ing to work out what you mean?
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
You may have missed it, as his comrade did, but he had responded nonsensically to the query in reply 11.

That query asked about his criticism of the numbers, and his response (in reply 12) appeared to be nonsensical/garbage.
Click to expand...

You may think it was nonsensical garbage - it was abundantly clear to me and many other posters in this thread.

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
He later admitted that his response was garbage. (where he blamed his blunder on my supposed miscommunication)

The blame was clearly misplaced, because my query (in reply 11) had been clear.
Click to expand...

You may think it was clear, it wasn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom