hc

_

"The right choice is to not worry about the state of Java's open or proprietary nature, despite some of the discussion occurring in the news today. It is not relevant to your business needs or the long term health of your enterprise software ecosystem."

you seem to contradict yourself a bit, first you agree that an algorithm could take "lolz that suckz" and produce "one of" the original thoughts that got transcribed as it, then you say there "simply isn't any sort of mapping" from "fuzzy thoughts" (sentences produced by transcribing thoughts?) to coherent ones. but obviously there are many such mappings, it's just that they aren't guaranteed to produce the same thought the author of the "fuzzy thought" had when he wrote down what he was thinking.

now, what is the actual cause for fear? is it the idea that we might someday be able to communicate without taking too much effort (what you say is impossible), or that people with nothing going on between their ears will be able to produce computer-mediated output that is indistinguishable from coherent thought? i think the latter is more cause for concern/more interesting but i dont think anything youve said really addresses it. tbh i also dont think your brief discussion of information theory does much in the way of arguing against the former either. (your argument could be adapted to show that morse code is impossible, because messages are shorter in morse code than they would be in a straightforward ternary ascii encoding. but actually, it's just that the messages we typically wish to send are generally shorter.)

it sounds like you are irritated that you are being contradicted. i think the solution in this case is that you stop saying things that are flagrantly wrong. i am interested in "this particular semantic diversion". you have been taking a rather confident, definite tone in your various assertions and someone could easily get confused into believing there is legitimate content in your mathematical errors

by the "core of [your] argument" i assume you mean the idea that problems may be solvable in polynomial time but not necessarily quickly solvable in practice, therefore it is a simplification to call the elements of P "easy." that is of course indisputable, but i think the heuristic argument that P problems are easy is more forgivable than the mathematical error of saying O(cn) != O(n) because, like, y'know, asymptotics and stuff