Joined: Oct. 2009
|Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 01 2010,07:28)|
|Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2010,09:15)|
|Poor Joe is attention starved.|
When I claim "You've never calculated the CSI of anything, nor has any other IDer." he replies
|Unfortunately for RichTard Hughes I am exactly correct and have provided a reference to support my claim:|
But 'forgets' to include any math or an example. whoopsy.
then we have
|And Richtard- thanks for staying away. That makes my blog a better place. Traffic here has picked up in the past week...|
Yes, your last 3 posts have a total of 2 comments. That's nearly a whole comment per post. Well done!
Most tools I found can't count Intelligent Reasoning's traffic as it is too low, but this one
suggests under 10 visitors a day. And I'm probably 4 of them.
My blog's stat page counter says 200 visits per day.
Over 4,000 last month.
2000 of those hits are Richard, and 2000 are your mommy.
Yeah, cheap shot, but it's not like there's any science to discuss.
Joe, you want to lay out that algorithm?
Hey Joe, let me ask you. If put a copy of a dictionary file on my computer and it takes up 2 megabytes... so you're saying that I can put a second copy of the dictionary on my computer and it won't take up any more space? I could put a million copies of the dictionary on my computer in that 2 megabytes... damn ID is useful for something.
Joe, you're confused again. I understand, it's OK. Learning helps with that... also, I'm given to understand, 28 shots of tequila in less than 1 hour... but I don't drink.
You are switching between definitions of information (again!). You are using a great tactic... unless everyone knows you are using it. You just switch between definitions that don't mean your statement is rebuted.
In terms of meaningful information about the English language, you're right, two copies of the dictionary have the smae information. But if you're talking Shannon, then you have to transmit BOTH copies and that takes more time. If you're talking Kolmogorov information, then it will take slightly more information to specify BOTH copies rather than one copy of the information in the dictionary.
Of course, neither really apply to what you want, which is the informational content in DNA, because, I'm sorry (and I think the actual Biologists will agree), you don't know jack about Biology.
I know, you aren't swayed. I don't care. You're not even interesting. At least in discussion with that idiot Richard Kepler, I'm having to learn new things.
The stuff you've been regurgitating has been torn apart for 5-10 years.
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.