I introduced the fact that the rules of chess do not state that the game ends in a finite number of moves. That is the context of the post and my reply, and the only context that matters. If I wanted to make comments about developing a chess AI, I would have made them. However, I would suggest that knowing the rules of the game would help were one to be developing an engine for it.
The only thing stupid here is your inability to read and/or grasp the scope of statements and their responses.
Thanks for noting the broader points originally posted in this thread by... me, but once again I was in no way stating that a finite algorithm is impossible, especially by -stipulating- that the algorithm will make the -not mandatory choice- of claiming a draw. I was stating that the claim that every chess game ends in a finite number of moves is incorrect, which it is, per the rules.
Once again, here is the statement I was responding to:
Every game ends in a finite number of moves, therefore the permutation of all games is also finite.
It is simply incorrect to state that every chess game ends in a finite number of moves. That is the statement my post responded to. That his conclusion may be true for -an entirely different reason- than his supporting premise, is irrelevant to the accuracy of my statement.
Correct, but then we're assuming that the algorithm calculating the moves includes the ability to do all the necessary positional hashes, and though most modern chess engines do such hashing to some extent, a positional repetition of all future lines would have to be detected by the search algorithm, and this has become a different issue than what I was responding to.;)
And you seem to have forgotten that "clock games" are a subset of "chess games".
Not that it would change things anyway, as for most types of tournament games (if we subset it that way), the time controls add time to the clock for every N moves. "Sudden death" time controls would be the exception, but we are again talking about a (dramatic) subset of "chess games", and "chess games" per se can still be infinite, considering all the permutations of moves across the permutations of games.
Actually, no. The only things limiting the length of the game for permutations where each side could, say, begin moving a few endgame pieces back and forth endlessly, are the "50-move" and "draw by threefold repetition" rules. However, claiming a draw by either of these means is -not mandatory-, so unlikely as it may be practically, both sides could elect to never claim a draw under either rule and the shuffling of pieces could go on infinitely.
That someone will be knocked off their bike by an antelope -somewhere in the world- is not improbable.
If the sample size is reduced or specific by reference to the actual case at hand, such as dreaming of being knocked off your bike by an antelope, and then a week later, it actually happening, it becomes extraordinarily improbable.
Most people are not confused by this, even if it serves skepticism to insist they are. Few are unclear on the distinction in probability between "someone will win the lottery" and "you will win the lottery".
Well, as for "important data", some variant of this technique became the standard for most all of the disk-backup and "fast load" utilities of the time, so I think one could fairly say the scope of the data transferred by this means became eventually "all of it".;)
It didn't hurt that process that the built-in firmware of the 1541 was horrifically slow out-of-the-box, and though it's been a long time, I'd broad-brush this method as around 500 times faster than "stock".
On clock drift, was never my experience that this was a practical problem, though it's an interesting question. Since the physical movement of the disk and stepper-motor was naturally slower than the data transfer, one would be resyncing the process every few sectors (again, don't quote me, but IIRC the 1541's built-in RAM was enough to buffer 4 sectors), and over that number of bytes I never encountered drift sufficient to lose any bits.
If you've never written a serial data-transfer routine in Assembly that transfers said data from a floppy drive at the absolute maximum possible theoretical speed, down to the clock cycle, by using both the clock and data lines for data, and leveraging the happy coincidence that the 1541 drive had its own 6502 CPU that ran at the same speed the computer does (once you blank the screen)... I highly recommend it.
No handshaking at all. Just Assembly loops and the data sitting on the pins for precisely the necessary clock cycle duration for the two loops running on the two CPUs on separate devices connected only by serial. Good times.
Well, I can't speak to the specifics of your brother's experiences. And neither can you, with regards to his experiences nor mine--not that this stopped you from applying your apparent psychic powers to determine I've experienced things I stated nowhere. And there is no validation of "science" on this matter, other than it demonstrating your own claims here blatantly false.
That you consider (your understanding of) the situation "terrible", just doesn't matter at all. Your personal subjective opinion doesn't mean anything more than any other given person's subjective opinion, that is, essentially nothing, and you have no means by which you can present any objective validation for it. In fact, you contradict yourself on this very point, saying there are only "shades of gray" and yet, pertaining to (your misunderstanding of) hell, you can make an absolute judgment about its ethical status.
Secondly, "tons of people are roasting in hell" is your construct, and not a valid one. I suggest 1 Cor. 15:20-28 to begin correcting your misapprehension.
Thanks for your evidence-free assertions. I do, however, know otherwise.
But to focus on something upon which we both agree, let's pick this discussion up after you get Naturally Deselected, and become completely, and permanently, irrelevant.
If you really believe what you believe, why are you posting as anon? And would you be kind enough to give up your place in heaven to five people from hell?
I am posting anon because I rather liked leaving the last post of my posting history what it was. Prefer this?
It makes not the slightest difference whether I'd be "kind" enough to give up my place, nor does it matter in the least that "kindness" is the most important thing to you personally. You may as well ask if I'd be "kind" enough to upgrade everyone to flying cars. It's irrelevant because reality doesn't work that way. Neither does the nature of Christian metaphysics work the way you argue for for the purposes of arguing against. Nor does it matter to seeking an idealized outcome that you propose it's necessary to break something to fix something else.
The distinction between you and I is that I actually know what God is doing with this. You are attempting to evaluate the purported ethics of the situation based on your personal feelings drawing from an entirely wrong notion of how things work. An uniformed conclusion based on a false premise, does not result in a useful opinion.
In short, I will not be cowering, nor complaining, simply appreciative of the ethical precision of a system including a "hell" you actually know nothing about.
Besides, the disciple Peter already commented on how scriptures should be used that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam continues to ignore:
Depends on which subset you are referencing. Origen of Alexandria, as one of the "fathers" of the Christian Church, was arguing for allegorical interpretation of Genesis in the second century AD. I wouldn't form your notion of the demographics based on Bishop Ussher's 17'th century error and the subsequent Straw Men characterizations issuing lately primarily from Dawkins et al. History simply isn't one of science "stepping in" and correcting the supposed universal Christian error of Young Earth Creationism. History just didn't happen that way.
Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like."
Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a righteous angel."
Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."
Thomas said to him, "Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom you are like."
Jesus said, "I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring which I have measured out."
And he took him and withdrew and told him three things. When Thomas returned to his companions, they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?"
Thomas said to them, "If I tell you (even) one of the things which he told me, you will pick up stones and throw them at me; a fire will come out of the stones and burn you up."
"Correlation does not imply causation" is a clear concept here at Slashdot--unless the topic is religion. In that case, any broad correlation is fully sufficient to demonstrate that Worldview X "stole" its concepts from Worldview Y.
But, let's get serious. Cite your primary-source documents, showing even the level of correlation, so that the evaluation of independent individuals, rather than your dogmatic posturing, can evaluate their relevance within the context of -overall- similarity.
They do contain useful information, increasing our knowledge of central issues of existence. That you do not acknowledge, within your framework of evaluation, their value, doesn't actually matter at all. Get Naturally Deselected, become totally irrelevant, and we'll move on.
For a substantial subset of the population of a certain worldview, the main dilemma is that they can propose no conceptual differentiator of themselves from animals at all.
Slashdot Mirror
I introduced the fact that the rules of chess do not state that the game ends in a finite number of moves. That is the context of the post and my reply, and the only context that matters. If I wanted to make comments about developing a chess AI, I would have made them. However, I would suggest that knowing the rules of the game would help were one to be developing an engine for it.
The only thing stupid here is your inability to read and/or grasp the scope of statements and their responses.
Great. Maybe reply to a post that claimed otherwise, instead, then? ;)
Thanks for noting the broader points originally posted in this thread by... me, but once again I was in no way stating that a finite algorithm is impossible, especially by -stipulating- that the algorithm will make the -not mandatory choice- of claiming a draw. I was stating that the claim that every chess game ends in a finite number of moves is incorrect, which it is, per the rules.
Once again, here is the statement I was responding to:
Every game ends in a finite number of moves, therefore the permutation of all games is also finite.
It is simply incorrect to state that every chess game ends in a finite number of moves. That is the statement my post responded to. That his conclusion may be true for -an entirely different reason- than his supporting premise, is irrelevant to the accuracy of my statement.
Correct, but then we're assuming that the algorithm calculating the moves includes the ability to do all the necessary positional hashes, and though most modern chess engines do such hashing to some extent, a positional repetition of all future lines would have to be detected by the search algorithm, and this has become a different issue than what I was responding to. ;)
And you seem to have forgotten that "clock games" are a subset of "chess games".
Not that it would change things anyway, as for most types of tournament games (if we subset it that way), the time controls add time to the clock for every N moves. "Sudden death" time controls would be the exception, but we are again talking about a (dramatic) subset of "chess games", and "chess games" per se can still be infinite, considering all the permutations of moves across the permutations of games.
Actually, no. The only things limiting the length of the game for permutations where each side could, say, begin moving a few endgame pieces back and forth endlessly, are the "50-move" and "draw by threefold repetition" rules. However, claiming a draw by either of these means is -not mandatory-, so unlikely as it may be practically, both sides could elect to never claim a draw under either rule and the shuffling of pieces could go on infinitely.
That someone will be knocked off their bike by an antelope -somewhere in the world- is not improbable.
If the sample size is reduced or specific by reference to the actual case at hand, such as dreaming of being knocked off your bike by an antelope, and then a week later, it actually happening, it becomes extraordinarily improbable.
Most people are not confused by this, even if it serves skepticism to insist they are. Few are unclear on the distinction in probability between "someone will win the lottery" and "you will win the lottery".
Well, as for "important data", some variant of this technique became the standard for most all of the disk-backup and "fast load" utilities of the time, so I think one could fairly say the scope of the data transferred by this means became eventually "all of it". ;)
It didn't hurt that process that the built-in firmware of the 1541 was horrifically slow out-of-the-box, and though it's been a long time, I'd broad-brush this method as around 500 times faster than "stock".
On clock drift, was never my experience that this was a practical problem, though it's an interesting question. Since the physical movement of the disk and stepper-motor was naturally slower than the data transfer, one would be resyncing the process every few sectors (again, don't quote me, but IIRC the 1541's built-in RAM was enough to buffer 4 sectors), and over that number of bytes I never encountered drift sufficient to lose any bits.
If you've never written a serial data-transfer routine in Assembly that transfers said data from a floppy drive at the absolute maximum possible theoretical speed, down to the clock cycle, by using both the clock and data lines for data, and leveraging the happy coincidence that the 1541 drive had its own 6502 CPU that ran at the same speed the computer does (once you blank the screen)... I highly recommend it.
No handshaking at all. Just Assembly loops and the data sitting on the pins for precisely the necessary clock cycle duration for the two loops running on the two CPUs on separate devices connected only by serial. Good times.
That would be one variant. Sorting the overall horde pragmatically is left as an exercise for the reader.
Too late. Soulless biological automatons have already overrun much of Europe.
Well, I can't speak to the specifics of your brother's experiences. And neither can you, with regards to his experiences nor mine--not that this stopped you from applying your apparent psychic powers to determine I've experienced things I stated nowhere. And there is no validation of "science" on this matter, other than it demonstrating your own claims here blatantly false.
So, a couple things here.
That you consider (your understanding of) the situation "terrible", just doesn't matter at all. Your personal subjective opinion doesn't mean anything more than any other given person's subjective opinion, that is, essentially nothing, and you have no means by which you can present any objective validation for it. In fact, you contradict yourself on this very point, saying there are only "shades of gray" and yet, pertaining to (your misunderstanding of) hell, you can make an absolute judgment about its ethical status.
Secondly, "tons of people are roasting in hell" is your construct, and not a valid one. I suggest 1 Cor. 15:20-28 to begin correcting your misapprehension.
Thanks for your evidence-free assertions. I do, however, know otherwise.
But to focus on something upon which we both agree, let's pick this discussion up after you get Naturally Deselected, and become completely, and permanently, irrelevant.
If you really believe what you believe, why are you posting as anon? And would you be kind enough to give up your place in heaven to five people from hell?
I am posting anon because I rather liked leaving the last post of my posting history what it was. Prefer this?
It makes not the slightest difference whether I'd be "kind" enough to give up my place, nor does it matter in the least that "kindness" is the most important thing to you personally. You may as well ask if I'd be "kind" enough to upgrade everyone to flying cars. It's irrelevant because reality doesn't work that way. Neither does the nature of Christian metaphysics work the way you argue for for the purposes of arguing against. Nor does it matter to seeking an idealized outcome that you propose it's necessary to break something to fix something else.
The distinction between you and I is that I actually know what God is doing with this. You are attempting to evaluate the purported ethics of the situation based on your personal feelings drawing from an entirely wrong notion of how things work. An uniformed conclusion based on a false premise, does not result in a useful opinion.
In short, I will not be cowering, nor complaining, simply appreciative of the ethical precision of a system including a "hell" you actually know nothing about.
Viably so, since intermixing these two has valid risk of significant social effects.
Thanks for the standard stupid troll on your part, though.
Salva nos, Domine, vigilantes, custodi nos dormientes
Nice. Finally, I have the sense that I can Slashdot-retire. ;)
Besides, the disciple Peter already commented on how scriptures should be used that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam continues to ignore:
Depends on which subset you are referencing. Origen of Alexandria, as one of the "fathers" of the Christian Church, was arguing for allegorical interpretation of Genesis in the second century AD. I wouldn't form your notion of the demographics based on Bishop Ussher's 17'th century error and the subsequent Straw Men characterizations issuing lately primarily from Dawkins et al. History simply isn't one of science "stepping in" and correcting the supposed universal Christian error of Young Earth Creationism. History just didn't happen that way.
Overall, though, interesting post.
...whether you know it or not.
Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like."
Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a righteous angel."
Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."
Thomas said to him, "Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom you are like."
Jesus said, "I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring which I have measured out."
And he took him and withdrew and told him three things. When Thomas returned to his companions, they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?"
Thomas said to them, "If I tell you (even) one of the things which he told me, you will pick up stones and throw them at me; a fire will come out of the stones and burn you up."
--Thomas
We know you better than you think.
"Correlation does not imply causation" is a clear concept here at Slashdot--unless the topic is religion. In that case, any broad correlation is fully sufficient to demonstrate that Worldview X "stole" its concepts from Worldview Y.
But, let's get serious. Cite your primary-source documents, showing even the level of correlation, so that the evaluation of independent individuals, rather than your dogmatic posturing, can evaluate their relevance within the context of -overall- similarity.
They do contain useful information, increasing our knowledge of central issues of existence. That you do not acknowledge, within your framework of evaluation, their value, doesn't actually matter at all. Get Naturally Deselected, become totally irrelevant, and we'll move on.
Indeed... we are animals like all the rest no different than the others save we live in a sea of language and all that entails.
Speak for yourself.
For a substantial subset of the population of a certain worldview, the main dilemma is that they can propose no conceptual differentiator of themselves from animals at all.
This has... implications.