You constantly reprimand people for their math errors, yet make very confident erroneous statements like the above about basic information theory concepts. Perhaps a change in tone is warranted.

Not the same, and for an important reason. Mutual information is the Kullback-Liebler divergence of the actual joint distribution of X and Y from the joint distribution of X and Y if they were independent.

@EricMH there are several threads devoted to your questions. This one is for @Mung. You should not post here. Any tone you detect does not involved you.

I encourage you to be as quick at retracting errors I was just with you. Everyone makes errors. The people you should trust are those who are easily correctable and quick to make changes. Right now, there appear to be several errors that you are caught in that are taking months to resolve.

@Mung those are good comments, I will edit when I am back to a real keyboard. I avoided âentropyâ because Iâm less familiar with the thermodynamic interpretations, but I need to add that in somehow.

@swamidass thanks, in my effort to use simple tetms that one backfired. Suggestion?

Rather than doing the exercise for @mung, help direct him on how to do it for himself. Donât do his homework for him. Help him figure it out. This isnât rocket science. Mistakes will be made, but he has to work it out if he wants to learn. I think he is actually quite capable of this.

@EricMH, I made a side comment thread for you post in. Please do not post in the main thread any more. Please respect @Mungâs effort to figure this out for himself.

You have certainly not been quick to retract errors. Off the top of my head:

You can empirically disprove a mathematical proof

ASC over estimates CSI

A halting oracle is logically impossible

You can disprove ID

How does this relate to your last sentence?

You have eventually stopped stating these errors, but only after I constantly held you accountable. And you have never publicly admitted you are wrong on those points, although at least on point #3 you eventually offered your own argument that a halting oracle is possible.

@swamidass You also state that there are multiple errors I am not admitting. What are they? I can address them if you will tell me.

An âimperfect halting Oracleâ isnât even an oxymoron. The whole point about a halting oracle is that it can reliable determine whether any process can halt. An âimperfect halting oracleâ could logically be anything that isnât a halting oracle. My dog is one such example.

Itâs âall or nothingâ by definition and in application.

This would be comical retelling if wasnât tragic. None of these things are errors.

This is clearly true, and not an error.

We came to settle together that this was true. I can retrieve quotes if you doubt it.

That is entirely true. I even presented the proof to you.

Iâve pointed out that I can disprove specific ID argument, and I can. This is true.

Disagreements are not errors @EricMH. In fact, you have vacillated back and forth on three of these things, admitting (correctly) you had made an error after quite a bit of conversation, only to forget it now.

To be clear, there is no proof whatsoever against determinism + chance making an âimperfect halting oracle,â to use your neologism. If you grant that âimperfect halting oracleâ can produce information, as you have, the whole argument falls apart. Iâve explained exactly where your error is. You are using âinformationâ in two contradictory sense: the theory of information that arises from an omniscient total view of a system, vs. the empirical reality of measuring part of a system with imperfect knowledge.

That is the error in your thinking. What you think is a ârescueâ, that there are âimperfectâ halting oracles, undermines the second point, that halting oracles donât exist in nature. Therefore the whole argument false apart. This is an example of us mathematically proving that an ID argument is in error. It leads to direct contradiction.

Alright, I take it back. I thought you had retracted this error. At least you seemed to do so in private communication.

You are quite wrong on that point. Allow me to now act aghast you would believe such a thing as a tenured professor and expert in information theory and say this throws your whole credibility into doubt, as youâve done so often against me.

Sure, quote ahead. The math is clear. I guess itâs because you donât think math holds in reality

Whoa, crazy man! A complete about face from the thread where you claimed God could be a halting oracle. Oh well, I guess thatâs what happens when you believe math doesnât apply to the empirical world.

Anyways, you are also clearly wrong on this point. Halting oracles are not impossible. Your âproofâ is just a circular argument that halting oracles are impossible because everything is a Turing machine.

Ah, that is a bit of goalpost shifting there. We started our interactions on this forum over the claim that you could disprove the central information argument of ID, which you have never done in the many weeks weâve gone back and forth here. Clearly you can do no such thing. But again, not surprising youâd make contradictory claims if you think math doesnât apply to the empirical world.

As you insisted that I supply specifics when making such accusations, you should do the same here. Unsubstantiated allegations are not a trustworthy thing to do. But, donât bother, because as I said Iâm leaving this quite passive aggressive forum.

Good math applies to the empirical world. The stuff youâve presented so far, no so much. Like your claim you have mathematically proven real world evolutionary processes canât add information to a genome. That was a real beauty.

I havenât seen anything you or anyone has published in the primary scientific literature proving real world evolutionary processes canât add information to a genome. Iâm sure you can âproveâ all sorts of things in your extremely limited hypothetical math world but applying it to the real world is another thing entirely. You have come nowhere close to doing so.

Thatâs not an imperfect halting oracle. Perhaps you missed my use of the term âundecidableâ or donât know what it means. I donât know. Itâs clear you are not interested in understanding what I have to say, but are merely looking for opportunities to ID bash, or âruthlessly destroy bad ID argumentsâ as you like to call it. If you thought about it for a second youâd see an âimperfect halting oracleâ is a perfectly coherent concept, i.e. just take the infinite set of decision problems for a perfect halting oracle, and remove one element. Still an infinite undecidable set, but no longer coextensive with that of the perfect halting oracle. See? Pretty easy.