|
polcott wrote: that I must be wrong without looking at what I actually said
If someone claims that they can prove the sum of angles is not 180 degrees then I am not going to look at what they said.
If someone claims that they have a lossless compression method that can reduce anything down to a couple of bytes I am not going to look at what they said (I have actually seen a claim like that in a forum.)
If someone claims that the world is flat I am not going to look at what they said (I have read articles refuting such claims.)
I do not do that because I have taken the actual educational classes that demonstrate that those claims are false. I actually either did the proofs myself as part of class work or at least did a step by step analysis of the proofs and understood those proofs.
So I do not need to attempt to validate claims by others that they are wrong.
But I already pointed out that if you can prove your contention then write it up and submit it to a real scientific journal.
I also pointed out that if you can do that then there will be significant benefits to you personally by doing so.
So given that then why are you not busy writing up the article?
|
|
|
|
|
polcott wrote: Two people each with masters degrees in computer science
And a heart surgeon promotes homeopathic remedies. So thus those must work?
polcott wrote: He has also agreed that I can quote him on this.
If you are already convinced then why are you posting here?
|
|
|
|
|
polcott wrote: This is the 12th article
I don't care.
There are probably thousands of articles promoting cow urine as a cure for cancer and MBA's in India are presumably producing papers all the time on Astrology since that is a degree program in multiple universities.
What I said was that you should get published in a formal mathematics journal. At a minimal such a journal must not be 'pay per publish'.
|
|
|
|
|
It's a bot.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Probably because of your attitude and behaviour.
|
|
|
|
|
"For those who code" and do not simply pontificate.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Please go back to whatever theoretical cave you crawled out of.
I'll stick to the more practical problems today, thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well big deal; there are plenty of people here who have more, less or the same experience and skills. But unlike you they do not abuse the forums or the people who try to help them.
|
|
|
|
|
You're following your reputation to the letter.
I still don't give a sh*t.
|
|
|
|
|
None of that means anything however in the context of the question.
polcott wrote: I have been a professional C++ software engineer since 2004.
And I learned what you are claiming has been proven to be false in about 1984. I learned the assumptions of the Turing machine and went through multiple proofs associated with it. And a lot more mathematics as well in many other classes.
modified 17-May-23 13:26pm.
|
|
|
|
|
 C'mon Dave don't beat around the bush, tell us how you really feel!
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
polcott wrote: The following code is executed in the x86utm operating system based...
No. You are redefining the problem and then ignoring it when people call it out.
That program specfically represents a problem that was proven mathematically long ago using the Turing machine.
If you want to prove something then you will need to actually provide the same rigor that Turing did. You have not done so.
polcott wrote: calls H(D,D) that simulates D(D) at line 11
You are ignoring that in the proof H() must be defined for ALL POSSIBLE CASES. You do not get to pick and choose what H() does.
polcott wrote: Here is an example of work in this same field:
First what journal was that published in? I can find references to the article but not anything that I see as a journal.
But as I read the paper it does not really support anything that you are saying.
That paper has one specific example. And in fact seems more like an attempt to prove something about a different idiom under test - the "TSR".
The paper provides exactly what they did in detail. So I suggest that you answer your own question by applying exactly what they did in the paper to the code that you provided above.
|
|
|
|
|
polcott wrote: I never was asking the computer science question:
Do you understand the following statements?
You are using an example which has a very specific context - the Turing Machine.
The phrasing indicates you are attempting to change the context, but you have not fully defined the context.
|
|
|
|
|
polcott wrote: Not at all. The code that I wrote is very clearly written in C.
Sigh...again....
The example code originates from Turning Machine math.
If you want to prove something OUTSIDE of the Turing Machine then you must formally define the context then provide the proof from that.
Nothing you have posted here comes even close to be a formal proof.
And I am certainly not going to review anything you have posted elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
I am revoking my license to this
modified 19-May-23 21:16pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Upvoted your question because someone else down voted it and certainly did not provide a reason.
They might have considered it a homework question.
Or because that exact same problem and presumably answer can be found by googling.
|
|
|
|
|
This is discussed in the same question you posted in the other forum.
And since I now know the context, you are looking a problem that has been mathematically proven to be true. (Well technically proven to be unprovable.)
It has nothing to do with software in the context that you are suggesting.
polcott wrote: I have been a professional C++ software engineer since 2004.
You should look to your local universities and to the mathematics departments in each and find at least one class on Turing mathematics. This will be a class specific to mathematics and not software (although these days they might want you to write one or two simple programs.)
If there is more than one then you should take all of them.
|
|
|
|
|
polcott wrote: The bottom line is that this is a tautology, thus impossibly false:
Certainly if you have refuted a significant proof that has been in place for perhaps 80 years or more then you should immediately write it up and submit the article to one of the formal mathematical journals. It would be an astounding achievement. It would likely be submitted for several significant awards (along with monetary awards) and would likely lead to you getting quite a few job offers from both universities and companies.
I am eagerly awaiting to see the announcement of this when it is published.
|
|
|
|
|
I think a saw once a file made of a queue of commands for a strategy game that did that, it was more than a decade ago so it’s very vague in my mind. What I’m sure about is that it wasn’t script what I saw.
My question is if the file is structured as follows:
Build SCV
Build SCV
Build Barracs
Build SCV
Train marine
Etc.
How do you build SCV number 4 in the queue before building Barracs is over. When either training a unit is over or constructing a building is completed you generate an event which can be used to move on to the execution of the next item in the queue. But how do you proceed when you don’t want to wait until the execution of the previous command is over?
|
|
|
|
|
I create objects with one or more "counters"; that count down or up (time remaining; time elapsed). I handle every object at least once during a "frame" (if it is "active"). Time remaining is when they are performing an action that must "expire" (e.g. change in formation) before going on to the next "order". Time elapsed is how long they've been at something (moving, double time, firing, fighting, etc.). So, no "events"; just changes in state or "levels of condition" (fatigue; loss; ammo) that are monitored.
The only "orders" I have needed so far are for "waypoints" on a given route. ("AI"  and the user does the rest).
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Gerry, that gets me a bit closer to what I’m trying to do even if I’m not using exactly the same approach. In this case what matters most is the order in which the money are spent so as soon as building the Barracs has begun you can jump to the next item in the queue if you have the money
modified 28-Apr-23 7:35am.
|
|
|
|
|
I have "various" queues. If I need to rotate over time, the angle is "queued" as a counter. During each frame (time interval / slice) the angle is reduced and applied to the object. Since my "game" can run at anywhere from 1x to 40x, it's all a function of time.
The route waypoints are queued and consumed at a rate equal to the time it took for the last one; which varies with terrain. One queue can direct multiple objects (object chain of command).
The guns have to be unlimbered before they can fire ... a queue on itself.
One queue is fatigue ... which increase with rapid gaits, and only decreases with reduced movements.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, thanks for feedback
> if I need to rotate over time
I guess you can queue a lot of things.
If we talk about rotations a place where you could use that would be when you want your units to face in the direction they are walking towards. In my game the graphics are as basic as they can get. A unit is just a small square. If I were to change the graphics to something slightly better, for unit look at I would probably be using sudden changes of rotation, the method used in Blizzard RTS games.
Returning to base building... a question that has got me thinking is the problem of training low level units vs training high level units. When the AI player is far into the tech tree and has advanced units available for training it chooses to replenish the low level units lost in the battle too. ( a human in the same situation usually chooses to train only advanced units)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
