Conway's Life, seebs

[Raven_poe]

Sigh. Michali does have one point, and it's that the thread needs to be ended.

Michali: You know I'm your friend. I think you're a smart guy, and you're fun to be around. But in this, you are wrong. You are so wrong, that I'm not even certain what it is that you are wrong of anymore. What is the argument? Is it still that the input is equal to the output of any system?

To answer why people get so frustrated when you type 3 + 3 = 6, you have to realize that this mathematical "proof" of yours does not prove, support, or even relate to your argument. There is no input or output in expression, it's just a string of logic stating that one side is equal to the other. And in that regard, yes, 3 plus 3 -does equal- 6. I think we all established that back in first grade math.

But that is not at all what you are suggesting. You are suggesting that for any given FUNCTION, that the input is equal to the output. It's already been pointed out several times that this is only true for one specific function, and that is f(x)=x. For any other function, you cannot say that the input will always be equal to the output.

To continue using arbitrary numbers, let's say we have a function f(x)=x + 3. In this example, the input is x, and the +3 is the rule of the function, or the -process- through which the input goes through within that function. In Conway's Game of Life, this process would be the rules that we've already established, which I've arbitrarily represented here as +3 because I'm not a mathematician and cannot give an accurate mathematical expression for the rules of conway's life.

So now, we have out output, WHICH IS A FUNCTION OF THE INPUT, X. That's what f(x) means. What you seem to be completely ignoring here is that IS A FUNCTION OF THE INPUT is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT! the same thing as saying "is the input." In my example, an input of 3 would lead to an output of 6. I know you're capable of making a table of possible inputs and their corresponding outputs here, but just in case you want to ignore that too, I'll go ahead. (please forgive the crappy formatting this is bound to achieve)

x f(x)
-2 1
-1 2
0 3
1 4
2 5

Now if this looks incredibly simple and rudimentary, it's because it is. But the flaw in your "theory" is at it's most rudimentary level. No where are any of those inputs equal to their outputs.

This simple function completely disproves your theory. It is all that is needed to show that the theory is flawed and wrong. It should have stopped there two pages ago. But you pass over it every time.

Allow me to appeal for your love of "gut feelings." You have lead me to believe that you value these "gut feelings" over petty things like evidence, and I've already stated my opinion that this is bunk. But if you're going to value these sorts of insights, at least value them consistently. You have a gut feeling, and you share it to a board full of people, and nearly every response you receive is a -gut reaction- that you are wrong. Everything else in your theory becomes completely useless because the foundation you build it upon is fatally flawed. You are so quick to try and jump to some sort of earth shattering conclusion that you fail to realize that the premise you base all of your following work on is WRONG. If you won't value logic and evidence, at least value this, and take a step back for a moment and consider that you might indeed be wrong, otherwise you're just being a hypocrite.

So either you accept the evidence as presented, and admit you are wrong, or you brush off the evidence and go with 'gut feeling'. But even then, you have to decide if you truly value 'gut feeling', of which you're getting a lot of people reporting negatively to, or admit that the only 'gut feeling' you truly value is your own.

The true test of anyone, be they a scientist, philosopher, or an everyday person, is the ability to take a step back and realize that they might be wrong.

Thread over. There is nothing more now that can be said. If you want to continue this argument, just flip back to page one and read it all again, because that's all any future discussion will look like. The exact same thing over and over.

Pwnz0r

[Michali]

Originally Posted by Joshua Adams

Standing on your head doesn't actually change anything, if you're feeding the grid into a computer program. Obviously. Then if you're upside down and you perceive the blue square to be in row 3, column 2 instead of row 1, column 2, you're simply wrong. The problem arises because you are numbering the squares according to their relative position to you, whereas actually the program has a well-defined internal ordering.

Because of this, there's a difference between flipping the grid and flipping yourself. Flipping the grid means actually feeding the computer the grid that would result from such a flip. It would recognize this as a different initial condition.

Well what if I used my imagination? Does my imagination need to know these component-specifics? Or even drawing them on a couple sheets of paper, and turning the paper upside down.

[Joshua Adams]

The only thing that matters is what the computer is doing, not your imagination. Why not just "imagine" that you inverted all the blue and grey squares? Why is the computer still acting like nothing happened?

[Michali]

Originally Posted by Joshua Adams

The only thing that matters is what the computer is doing, not your imagination. Why not just "imagine" that you inverted all the blue and grey squares? Why is the computer still acting like nothing happened?

Inverted what grid in my imagination, right? Take a sheet of paper, draw the grid. Its "A", and the you turn it upside down and its "a".

Take any initial state and flip it upside down, and you get an upside down version of an output. But if I walk around the table, or even if my brother is upside down, or on the other side of the table, he would think it was A still and not a.

Or take a long lasting process and I flip myself upside down in the middle of watching it on my comp. How did this inverse state occur after the non-inverse state?

How is the computer different from a sheet of paper? In other words, are not the specific qualities of something relativistic (to you, other observers, or in-grid relationships), but the general aspects are less relativistic?

[Joshua Adams]

Yeah, I think we're done here.

[Michali]

Hey if you guys agree with the quotes I made from wikipedia, then I'm glad we're on the same page.

[Farren]

Yup, pretty much. I get the sense that Michali is falling into the pattern of trying to rebut arguments without actually seriously considering their content (a pattern, Michali, I must admit I sometimes fall into, so as not to be hypocritical). But as much as I understand it, it still feels like talking to a brick wall. So I think I'm out. Enjoy convincing yourself, Michali. You're missing out on the opportunity to do a lot of learning here.

[Michali]

Originally Posted by Joshua Adams

The only thing that matters is what the computer is doing, not your imagination. Why not just "imagine" that you inverted all the blue and grey squares? Why is the computer still acting like nothing happened?

Also, what if the grid is infinite? How do you define the array in terms of position? If its by relationship to in-grid cell position, that's a general aspect I'm willing to accept. If its by some method of point of origin, that's observer dependent.

Now how hypocritical is it to call me a wall and yet close the door?

I say function inputs are are their function outputs, and essentially exist because they are observer dependent.

You argue against this by claiming arrays take into account grid position.

I suggest objective grid position is difficult to assess given these counter examples: multiple observers, multiple observations, imagination, (and now) infinite grid. So I suggest the grid position is still subjective.

You can't argue that a cell's specific grid position is not observer dependent and fail to defeat my hypothesis.

So you tell me I'm ignorant.

[Joshua Adams]

I say function inputs are are their function outputs, and essentially exist because they are observer dependent.

You argue against this by

Maybe you should quit ignoring the myriad ways we've disproved your idea and then I'll get back to you.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by Michali

Seebs. Let's close our argument. I'll quote wikipedia.

The function of the input is always the function of the output. I'm sure you'll agree.

I don't even know what you think you said.

Imagine f(x) = x+1.

f(1) = 2.
f(2) = 3.
f(3) = 4.

You seem to be arguing that, therefore, f(1) = 4, because it'd happen eventually.

This is not how functions work.

Now that you know you are completely wrong, how ridiculous did I sound? I didn't even research until now.

You still sound totally ridiculous to me. I don't think you understand one of these words. I can't tell which one.

But the sequence of words "the function of the input is always the function of the output" does not mean a fucking thing. It's not even coherent. It's just words strung together.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by Michali

Hey if you guys agree with the quotes I made from wikipedia, then I'm glad we're on the same page.

We're not, though, because everything else you say flatly contradicts them.

If this is not apparent to you, then all I can conclude is that you have misunderstood some key word so radically that there is nothing anyone can do to communicate with you on this topic. You don't know the words, and you keep using them wrong.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by Raven_poe

But that is not at all what you are suggesting. You are suggesting that for any given FUNCTION, that the input is equal to the output. It's already been pointed out several times that this is only true for one specific function, and that is f(x)=x. For any other function, you cannot say that the input will always be equal to the output.

Lemme step in for a moment to defend him.

I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he's saying that there is a kind of higher-level equivalence; that since the input always leads to the output, if you have the input and you know the function, you sort-of-in-a-way have the output already.

Okay, lemme jump fields. Slapstick humor.

You see a workman with a big long ladder. You know people are going to get hit by that ladder. You see guy-with-ladder, guy behind him, and pretty girl; you know that this inevitably leads to guy-with-ladder-looking-at-pretty-girl, and that the guy behind him gets hit by the ladder.

I think Michali is arguing that if you know what the output is, that in a sense you already have that output.

And there is a sense in which that's true.

What's not true is that this means that the input state never really existed. Of course it existed; the states all exist, at different times.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by Michali

I say function inputs are are their function outputs, and essentially exist because they are observer dependent.

Yes, you do. You say it over and over.

Saying it has not yet made it true, and I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to change.

You haven't provided any kind of argument for this belief.

Again, here's a function: f(x) = x+2. Here's an input: 3. Here's an output: f(3)=5.

You are claiming that 3=5. I'm claiming that you're going to have to explain what you mean by that.

So you tell me I'm ignorant.

Yes, because you seem to be completely invincibly immune to the concept of definitions of words. You snag random hunks of text off Wikipedia which absolutely contradict your position, and post them as support for it.

[Michali]

To seebs: What does it mean for something to have a function? Doesn't it mean that it functions in something?

Well how is it going to function in something if that something doesn't exist already? I mean we could even think about it deconstructively backwards.

What is ice? Well the oxygen molecule functions as one pole and the two hydrogen molecules function as another pole, and then the water molecules align in a crystalline manner to make ice. And you want to say, "Well hydrogen existed in water before it existed in ice", and I'm like, "Well that doesn't matter what it was in water because the function of its polarization is what it is in ice." So "hydrogen's polarization from oxygen" is "ice". Take away the polarization, then no ice. Take away the ice, that entails no polarization. I've been saying it all along, and its that the system is its function, and the function entails its system.

Now imagine only one system and only one function. The existence of the component parts are irrelevant and only exist because they might function in other systems. Hydrogen functions in water, for instance, and many other things, and that's why we can pull it apart from its function in water. But we see these multiple functions because we cannot grasp the overall function. This is in reference to the fact that we can technically make a law for any state in Conway's life to its total end state. The steps we take are something that we do. So if hydrogen functions as an element. Take away the element, you take away the hydrogen.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by Michali

To seebs: What does it mean for something to have a function? Doesn't it mean that it functions in something?

No.

Not when we're talking about mathematical functions, anyway. You're mistaking mathematical functions for "uses".

Again, you simply don't know the terminology, and because you're not familiar with the field, you're using other meanings some of these words had in other contexts.

What is ice? Well the oxygen molecule functions as one pole and the two hydrogen molecules function as another pole, and then the water molecules align in a crystalline manner to make ice. And you want to say, "Well hydrogen existed in water before it existed in ice", and I'm like, "Well that doesn't matter what it was in water because the function of its polarization is what it is in ice." So "hydrogen's polarization from oxygen" is "ice". Take away the polarization, then no ice. Take away the ice, that entails no polarization. I've been saying it all along, and its that the system is its function, and the function entails its system.

And what you've been saying all along is, so far as I can tell, complete nonsense.

I think what you might be almost sort of getting at is a kind of notion of an equivalence class; if you have two inputs, A and B, and f(A) = f(B), then you're figuring A and B are somehow interchangeable, at least with respect to f(), right?

Now imagine only one system and only one function. The existence of the component parts are irrelevant and only exist because they might function in other systems. Hydrogen functions in water, for instance, and many other things, and that's why we can pull it apart from its function in water. But we see these multiple functions because we cannot grasp the overall function. This is in reference to the fact that we can technically make a law for any state in Conway's life to its total end state. The steps we take are something that we do. So if hydrogen functions as an element. Take away the element, you take away the hydrogen.

There's not necessarily an end state, though.

Furthermore, I think you're massively misunderstanding the term function. It sounds to me like what you need here is some exposure to basic abstract mathematics. You're seeing words which have special meaning in mathematics, and you're using plain English meanings, then expecting mathematical claims to still be true of those meanings too. They aren't.

[Michali]

Originally Posted by seebs

No.

Not when we're talking about mathematical functions, anyway. You're mistaking mathematical functions for "uses".

Again, you simply don't know the terminology, and because you're not familiar with the field, you're using other meanings some of these words had in other contexts.

Actually, stop attacking my credibility on this subject. I don't need any familiarity with any math at all to know you're wrong, here. Here's a wikipedia article on dependent and independent variables:

"In traditional calculus, a function is defined as a relation between two terms called variables because their values vary. Call the terms, for example, x and y. If every value of x is associated with exactly one value of y, then y is said to be a function of x. It is customary to use x for what is called the "independent variable," and y for what is called the "dependent variable" because its value depends on the value of x.[1] Therefore, y = x2 means that y, the dependent variable, is the square of x, the independent variable.[1][2]"

What this means is if the independent variable can vary then the dependent variable may also change. Since, in Conway's life, there isn't any way my example of a 3 x 3 lone-blue square grid can vary, the function of it becoming grey in the next state is definite. Not only that, but it means that every value of the first state is associated with exactly one value of the all grey state. So it means that the dependent variable of "lone blue square" is equall to the function "all grey squares."

I thought it might be "turns all grey squares", but its not because each state is a pure function of the last state. So the relationship is signified by equality.

Originally Posted by seebs

And what you've been saying all along is, so far as I can tell, complete nonsense.

Fine, is the molecule H2O water? If it is, what is this relationship other than a relationship of function?

Originally Posted by seebs

I think what you might be almost sort of getting at is a kind of notion of an equivalence class; if you have two inputs, A and B, and f(A) = f(B), then you're figuring A and B are somehow interchangeable, at least with respect to f(), right?

Right. But if A has a center blue cell and B has a top center blue cell and a bottom center blue cell in a 3 x 3 grid in Conway's life, with respect to their functions they are equal. Now why doesn't that justify someone in saying that there aren't any blue squares in f(A) or f(B)?

I literally mean those states are all grey cells because of the equivalence relation. And no, I don't think that the blue cells aren't real on my screen because they turn grey in the simulator, I think they aren't (there isn't a word for this but its something like "real") in the Game of Life.

Do you agree with that assessment?

Originally Posted by seebs

There's not necessarily an end state, though.

In a finite grid, the point at which the simulator reaches oscillation is the end state, and the ultimate function of any initial state. If you want to hear what I think about an infinite grid, we can start a new thread on that next. Check out Ravenpoe's post containing the chatlog text file. Its short and relevant.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by Michali

Actually, stop attacking my credibility on this subject.

No. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you're misusing words.

I don't need any familiarity with any math at all to know you're wrong, here. Here's a wikipedia article on dependent and independent variables:

Which is totally irrelevant.

What this means is if the independent variable can vary then the dependent variable may also change. Since, in Conway's life, there isn't any way my example of a 3 x 3 lone-blue square grid can vary, the function of it becoming grey in the next state is definite.

Yes. In. The. Next. State.

Which means it hasn't changed yet.

Not only that, but it means that every value of the first state is associated with exactly one value of the all grey state. So it means that the dependent variable of "lone blue square" is equall to the function "all grey squares."

You are stringing these words together and they don't mean anything.

Okay, imagine that you're arguing with someone about cars, and then he says "so the Porsche of the engine is equal to the muffler of the Mazda."

That's what you're doing here.

I thought it might be "turns all grey squares", but its not because each state is a pure function of the last state. So the relationship is signified by equality.

The relationship including the function. And you keep saying that, since f(x)=y, x=y. That's not how it works.

Fine, is the molecule H2O water? If it is, what is this relationship other than a relationship of function?

Again:

The word "function" has multiple meanings. They are not interchangeable. Mathematical "functions" are not the same as "utility" or "use" or anything else.

Your question isn't even coherent.

Right.

Okay.

Then I can say with confidence that not only are you saying it badly, but you're wrong.

But if A has a center blue cell and B has a top center blue cell and a bottom center blue cell in a 3 x 3 grid in Conway's life, with respect to their functions they are equal.

Nope.

There is no "with respect to their functions".

Now why doesn't that justify someone in saying that there aren't any blue squares in f(A) or f(B)?

Because. The. Blue. Square. Is. Right. There.

We can point at it. It's there.

Imagine a function "shutting the fuck up". STFU(Michali) doesn't post. You're posting. But under this function you wouldn't be. So you really never posted at all, right? Only you DID. Here's your post! I quoted it! IT EXISTS!

That a function would produce a new state in which something is no longer present doesn't mean it wasn't present.

Okay, here's the mindfuck you need.

Imagine a single boolean variable. It has two states: TRUE and FALSE.

Now, here's our rule: It's called "NOT". NOT(TRUE) = FALSE. NOT(FALSE) = TRUE.

So.

Under your system, since NOT(TRUE) is FALSE, then TRUE is FALSE.

This. Is. Fucking. Stupid.

I literally mean those states are all grey cells because of the equivalence relation.

And that means you are totally, utterly, completely, wrong. Not even close to coherent.

And no, I don't think that the blue cells aren't real on my screen because they turn grey in the simulator, I think they aren't (there isn't a word for this but its something like "real") in the Game of Life.

Do you agree with that assessment?

No. I think it is a stupid assessment. I think it is based on a huge failure to understand what a mathematical "function" is, and that "function" in mathematics does not mean the same thing as ... whatever the fuck you're thinking it means. I really can't tell.

I think you seem to think that "f(a)=b" means "a is functionally the same as b". And that's just plain incoherent. It means that f() produces b from a. It doesn't mean that a is b; it means that f() describes a process which, given a, yields b. a and b can still be different.

[Michali]

Oh good, I wasn't sure if I pwnz0rd seebs, but now that I see he's not the kind that can admit defeat, this state of denial will taste that much sweeter.

f(x)=y
I never said "x" equals "y".
I always said the "function of x" equals y. Even in reference to "states", it means, "the grid in Conway's life prior to a function". A state is its next state. The initial state is its end state. Wiki on "function(mathematics)" describes this as:

"One idea of enormous importance in all of mathematics is composition of functions: if z is a function of y and y is a function of x, then z is a function of x. We may describe it informally by saying that the composite function is obtained by using the output of the first function as the input of the second one."

Hmm, why did you purposely ignore and misquote my explaining how I didn't mean there wasn't a blue square on my computer screen, but there isn't a blue square in the rules of Conway's life?

Oh no matter, I guess I

HAVE CAUSED ALL OF YOU TO SHOVE YOUR HEADS UP YOUR HINEYS

[Farren]

Well trolled sir.

ETA:

seebs:

So.

Under your system, since NOT(TRUE) is FALSE, then TRUE is FALSE.

This. Is. Fucking. Stupid.

ETA2: And so true by the way. If only Michali would pick up a 19th century book on logic by George Boole, he might understand.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Michali

HAVE CAUSED ALL OF YOU TO SHOVE YOUR HEADS UP YOUR HINEYS

All your hiney are belong to us.

All your hiney are belong to us.

[Wonderbread Leotard]

Originally Posted by Michali

(to Seebach) Now imagine...

There's your problem right there. You may as well try to talk a pocket calculator into using its (nonexistent) imagination.

I haven't slogged through most of this thread. However, I can tell you that Seebs is a total moron when it comes to human psychology and sexuality in particular, yet presents himself as knowledgeable in those spheres. I wouldn't be surprised if he's just as phony in other spheres. He's a confirmed bullshitter. So, if he claims victory, don't take his word for it.

[Kael]

He's back, ladies and gentlemen, let's give him a big hand!



ETA: And he's still hatin' on seebs. Classy as ever, I see. Welcome back, Sov.
ETA2: Dang, I missed a lot of from Michali while I was taking finals, it seems. I'll have to catch up on that...
ETA3: Sov, I like the way you felt the need to add (nonexistant) to the phrase "a pocket calculator using its imagination". I was really confused by that, but there you are to save the day with your clarifying parenthetical context. Thank you sir.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by Michali

Oh good, I wasn't sure if I pwnz0rd seebs, but now that I see he's not the kind that can admit defeat, this state of denial will taste that much sweeter.

I admit errors constantly, but not when someone can't use words correctly.

f(x)=y
I never said "x" equals "y"

Really?

"I literally mean those states are all grey cells because of the equivalence relation."

Since the "equivalence" in question is the function, you did, in fact, say x equals y.

I always said the "function of x" equals y. Even in reference to "states", it means, "the grid in Conway's life prior to a function". A state is its next state.

And here again you do it.

Claim 1: A state is its next state.

We'll come back to this.

What is the relation of the state to the next state? The next state is a function of the state. f(state) = next state. f(x) = y. But wait! You say "a state is its next state". That would be x = y. y is f(x). next state is f(state). But then...

You say "a state is its next state". You say x is y. You drop the "function of".

And you do this over and over.

The initial state is its end state. Wiki on "function(mathematics)" describes this as:

"One idea of enormous importance in all of mathematics is composition of functions: if z is a function of y and y is a function of x, then z is a function of x. We may describe it informally by saying that the composite function is obtained by using the output of the first function as the input of the second one."

Yup! But irrelevant to you.

Hmm, why did you purposely ignore and misquote my explaining how I didn't mean there wasn't a blue square on my computer screen, but there isn't a blue square in the rules of Conway's life?

I ignored it because it's rambling and incoherent.

You said "a state is its next state".

No. It fucking isn't.

You're wrong. Any time anything you say comes out to "a state is its next state" rather than "a state leads to its next state", you will STILL be wrong.

You've been so very firm and clear and explicit about stating that you really, really, do mean that there ARE no blue cells, ONLY grey cells... That it is not reasonable for us to ever believe that you did not, in fact, mean that there were no blue cells.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by Sovereign

There's your problem right there. You may as well try to talk a pocket calculator into using its (nonexistent) imagination.

I haven't slogged through most of this thread. However, I can tell you that Seebs is a total moron when it comes to human psychology and sexuality in particular, yet presents himself as knowledgeable in those spheres. I wouldn't be surprised if he's just as phony in other spheres. He's a confirmed bullshitter. So, if he claims victory, don't take his word for it.

Michali, just so you know:

This is probably the most damning thing anyone could have said about your argument. Sovereign is a wannabe child-rapist who said, himself, that he lies about things when he's mad at people.

If he's defending you, you are almost certainly wrong.

[Michali]

Originally Posted by seebs

Michali, just so you know:

This is probably the most damning thing anyone could have said about your argument. Sovereign is a wannabe child-rapist who said, himself, that he lies about things when he's mad at people.

If he's defending you, you are almost certainly wrong.

Thanks alot, I was going to defend you because you are a ridiculously smart person.

-edit- actually, what the hell is this person all about?