Computers?

[eccentrically1]

Will a computer tell you why it does not work?

John doe: Yes.

Only if the computer is programmed to tell you why it doesn't work. You wouldn't need the computer to tell you if you programmed it!

[ME]

You wouldn't need the computer to tell you if you programmed it!

You still could :-)

Because it's nice to have some metric telling you if some option is better than some other option. Especially when it found something useful. The context and its presentation is up to the designer.

Perhaps a more complete answer to John would have been: A computer doesn't have to comprehend its output, it just computes or processes its algorithm. But when it can and does, it doesn't have to find Perpetual Motion.

http://rednuht.org/genetic_cars_2/

That simultaneously shows visually how actual hill-climbing-optimization works, thanks.

Hi ME,
your good at maths...
so could you work this out for me [...] The answer is ...

Thanks for the confidence, but you answered your own query.
I could reply to the rest of your post, unless that was also some means to some end...

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi ME,

it was just a rant, about how people lied to add weight to there argument instead of doing real experiments they said they have done.

[Jagoda]

'Jeopardy' players answer questions with already known answers.

Hello everyone. This is my first post so go easy on me guys. What if, as Rlortie suggests, the answer was given. What I mean is we already have a wheel spinning at some given speed and at some given force. Then the computer program could back track or reverse engineer by arranging combinations from a library of mechanical devices until it found the combination that would produce the answer. Could that work?

Jagoda.

[Jagoda]

Perhaps a more complete answer to John would have been: A computer doesn't have to comprehend its output, it just computes or processes its algorithm. But when it can and does, it doesn't have to find Perpetual Motion.

I was just wondering if I got this. Now if a computer does understand that it found Perpetual Motion, it could tell you it didn't find it? If that's what you're saying then I'm wondering why they would have programed the personality of a politician or a boyfriend into it? That would be a 'uge mistake if they did.

Jagoda.

[ME]

Welcome Jagoda,

That would be a 'uge mistake if they did.

Perhaps it could happen by accident (a search-space which is a bit too large, at least larger than Physics alone), perhaps it depends on how desperate (or devoted) we are.

Actually I stopped at "comprehend", or right after "Now if a computer does understand."; no matter if it found PM or not.
But yes, it gets scary very quickly when it starts to lie about it.

'Jeopardy' players answer questions with already known answers.

Hello everyone. This is my first post so go easy on me guys. What if, as Rlortie suggests, the answer was given. What I mean is we already have a wheel spinning at some given speed and at some given force. Then the computer program could back track or reverse engineer by arranging combinations from a library of mechanical devices until it found the combination that would produce the answer. Could that work?

Jagoda.

I think you would still need to find a mechanism able to produce some net-torque per rotation...

Perhaps an alteration to your suggestion could be:
Take an arbitrary configuration and bring it up to speed until the wheel stopped by friction. Now try to find its counter-part by analyzing its motion in revered time. We could try to match a new configuration to this motion, just as you suggested.
We could iterate this all over again with the new found configuration, when this new solution makes the wheel stop less slowly.

Another idea:
Find a mechanism (something like a pendulum for example) which is able to move against rotation on the descending side but resets to its original orientation by speeding up when it ascends.

Perhaps we could brain-storm a lot more formulations?

But before one gets lost in all those suggestions, I think it needs to be weighed against the rant by Trevor Lyn Whatford.
Even though I don't entirely agree with most of his arguments, it was a good rant !

[Jagoda]

Thank you, Me.

[eccentrically1]

You wouldn't need the computer to tell you if you programmed it!

You still could :-)

Because it's nice to have some metric telling you if some option is better than some other option. Especially when it found something useful. The context and its presentation is up to the designer.

Perhaps a more complete answer to John would have been: A computer doesn't have to comprehend its output, it just computes or processes its algorithm. But when it can and does, it doesn't have to find Perpetual Motion.

But there is no option for PM. One option "better" than another option would just be based on the same algorithms that any ordinary machine is designed with. Our brains are analog computers. They stand a better chance of finding PM than a computer for which our brains write the algorithms. If someone designs a PM machine, they would still have to write the algorithms for the computer to understand it, and the algorithms to maybe improve on it.

[ME]

Our brains are analog computers. [therefore?] They stand a better chance of finding PM...

Being "analog" is just a bad excuse, for all we know that's just an illusion (like being unaware of the blinking of our eyes):: our genetic "programming" seems to be based on a quaternary system (base 4 / double binary), and a lot (not all) of our brain signalling gets discretely pulsed which sums up to an all-or-nothing (yes/no) decision (instead of acting like a bunch of operational-amplifiers)... we don't seem to have any problems with such approach.

If someone designs a PM machine, they would still have to write the algorithms for the computer to understand it.

Just as a computer is able to construct an algorithm which is beyond human understanding.
A PM might only be found by havinh=g multiple cross-correlated causes with multiple cross-correlated effects because (...I don't know) a specific factor or resonance is needed between several physical events or properties...

But there is no option for PM

Ok, fair point.

We are guessing PM is impossible

Possibly true.

The Math of Classical Mechanics leaves little to no room, so that's probably not the best source for our PM algorithms... (...opens-up MrVibrating's topic)

[John doe]

Can a computer really construct an algorithm that the human brain cannot understand?

[ME]

"Understanding" in general is relative, layered, and based on what's already understood.

For example:
Perhaps the computer found some answer for some problem by applying self adaption on symbolic computation.

Just for the sake of an arbitrary example just pick some complex math , or logic; while you actually don't have a clue what it might find.

Now image some of those Sine-, Cosine-, Exponents- functions are written like a Taylor serie, as auto-adaption just happened to work out that way.
Now image those functions are stored like a tree.
Now image it's stored somewhere inside the computer, but still "recognizable" for the programmer: Pick an example here.

Now image the computer claims it's >100% efficient for a Perpetual Motion...
I guess someone somewhere will eventually understand what it represents.

We could let it produce an image, an animation, a CAD diagram or simply pass it directly to a 3D-printer.
I guess you'll understand there is a possibility we'll have the result working and all right in our hands and yet will take a very long time before 'we' understand how it works.

[WaltzCee]

Being "analog" is just a bad excuse, for all we know that's just an illusion (like being unaware of the blinking of our eyes):: our genetic "programming" seems to be based on a quaternary system (base 4 / double binary), and a lot (not all) of our brain signalling gets discretely pulsed which sums up to an all-or-nothing (yes/no) decision (instead of acting like a bunch of operational-amplifiers)... we don't seem to have any problems with such approach.

Comma's are a very powerful tool. Take for instance this expression:

• Let's eat, grandpa.

or

• Let's eat grandpa!!

[ME]

Ok, perhaps I should have phrased things differently. Let's say: it adds to the puzzle factor.

[eccentrically1]

Now image the computer claims it's >100% efficient for a Perpetual Motion...

That would be nice, but you can get the same claim now from computer software.

[ME]

...or from people. Such claim still needs serious verification.