Time complexity analysis

1« Previous thread | Next thread »
- dr_sloth
- Pub Regular
- Orthodox Atheist
- offline
Time complexity analysis
OP - March 02, 2013, 07:44 AM

I am looking for somebody who understands how to calculate the time complexity of an algorithm. Perhaps a Computer Science student/graduate.

I feel that we should put some of Hamza Tzortzis's specific claims to the test.
Some of the more massively bullshit things he says get all the attention, whereas in truth, everything he says is bullshit. Everything he says deserves to be called out.

for example:

What is the time complexity of an algorithm that could lead to the conclusion that "All of the possible combinations of Arabic words, letters and grammatical rules have been exhausted"? (and the quran remains unsurpassed)
- deusvult
- O......O
- Pub Regular
- offline
Time complexity analysis
Reply #1 - March 02, 2013, 08:22 AM

The problem with it is that the Quran isn't a single rhetorical style. If it was then a computation would be possible, but if it switches between poetry and prose than any possible combination is possible. During the prose part just change an adverb to an adverbial phrase, change a compound noun to a noun and possessive. There are an infinite ways to write prose.

So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
My political philosophy below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
Just kidding, here are some true heros
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
- dr_sloth
- Pub Regular
- Orthodox Atheist
- offline
Time complexity analysis
Reply #2 - March 02, 2013, 08:26 AM

Quote
The problem with it is...

If it is intractable, then it is only a 'problem' for Hamza.

At the very least, he should be asked how long it took him to go through every combination and permutation.
He slips this kind of bullshit into his other bullshit, and it is often overlooked.
- deusvult
- O......O
- Pub Regular
- offline
Time complexity analysis
Reply #3 - March 02, 2013, 08:43 AM

I think it's only his problem, no one else's. I checked up and as far as I can tell there isn't any academic paper on the 'permutations of the Quran'. Most academic scholars agree that the Quran is a historic piece of work for Arabic literature, but I've never seen anyone other than Hamza hint at any 'objective' way to measure its immutability. Historically it's been more of a subjective, fuzzy, rah rah! statement, and with good reason. I think the philosophy behind all of his 'miracle of the Quran' assertions are hugely flawed as in no real literary critic would take them seriously.

So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
My political philosophy below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
Just kidding, here are some true heros
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
- zooby
- Ex-Muslim
- Snoozin'
- offline
Time complexity analysis
Reply #4 - March 02, 2013, 09:42 AM

Quote from: dr_sloth on March 02, 2013, 07:44 AM
I am looking for somebody who understands how to calculate the time complexity of an algorithm. Perhaps a Computer Science student/graduate.

I feel that we should put some of Hamza Tzortzis's specific claims to the test.
Some of the more massively bullshit things he says get all the attention, whereas in truth, everything he says is bullshit. Everything he says deserves to be called out.

for example:

What is the time complexity of an algorithm that could lead to the conclusion that "All of the possible combinations of Arabic words, letters and grammatical rules have been exhausted"? (and the quran remains unsurpassed)

Isn't there technically an infinite amount of possible combinations for any language? You could just take any sentence and extend it with an "and x". Sorry if I misunderstood the question.

Join us on chat. Click here.
- dr_sloth
- Pub Regular
- Orthodox Atheist
- offline
Time complexity analysis
Reply #5 - March 02, 2013, 09:53 AM

I'm not sure because Hamza the great, has checked every possible combination and permutation, and concluded that the quran is the best.

He has also compiled a list of the infinite number of rhetorical devices that could exist, checked every sentence in every book ever written, comparing them with this list, and again concluded that the quran has the highest frequency.

i can understand why Muslims think he is brilliant. He has achieved some pretty amazing feats of research, very much deserving of the title 'senior researcher'.
- dr_sloth
- Pub Regular
- Orthodox Atheist
- offline
Time complexity analysis
Reply #6 - March 02, 2013, 09:58 AM

what i was really hoping for however is a more technical way to prove that it is bullshit.
Even if we remove the problem of infinite, and imagine a language with a relatively small and limited number of possible words, letters and rules, it might still be the case that the algorithim to check through even the most basic elements of his claim requires an amount of time greater than the age of the universe.
- zooby
- Ex-Muslim
- Snoozin'
- offline
Time complexity analysis
Reply #7 - March 02, 2013, 10:42 AM

The problem in a simple case can definitely be solved in polynomial time. Say we have a very simple formal grammar. Our language consists simply of phrases in the structure

[Noun] [Verb] [Noun]

Lets say we have N nouns in our language and V verbs. Then we have (N x V x N) = VN^2 possible distinct valid phrases. Then lets say we also have a list of phrases that is claimed to contain all of the phrases possible in this limited grammar. The problem is then just reduced to counting the number of distinct valid phrases in the list and seeing if it is equal to VN^2. To count the distinct number of phrases in the list (lazily) would take O(L^2) time, L being the length of the list then the final checking operation would be O(1).

Sooo yeah it's definitely not intractable for a simple limited grammar. (When I say grammar I mean formal context-free grammar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context-free_grammar) You just need to be able to calculate the number of distinct valid phrases using the formal grammar. I suppose that's where the trouble comes in because Arabic is not really that simple.

Join us on chat. Click here.
- sturmgewehr
- Illyro-Thracian
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Time complexity analysis
Reply #8 - March 02, 2013, 01:10 PM

I really don't know what is the big deal with the Linguistic Miracle, I have never ever even taken it seriously and I am not even intrigued to discuss this issue cuy I find it pretty vacuous.
- dr_sloth
- Pub Regular
- Orthodox Atheist
- offline
Time complexity analysis
Reply #9 - March 02, 2013, 02:23 PM

because for whatever stupid reason, Tzortzis is making a lot of noise, and is getting louder.
I dont take a single argument for Islam seriously, but I still like to debunk them
- sturmgewehr
- Illyro-Thracian
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Time complexity analysis
Reply #10 - March 02, 2013, 02:33 PM

Linguistic miracles shouldn't really exist since a linguistic miracle is supposed to be something a man made up with his mind and spewed it out with his mouth, who cares, what about Monalisa, a Drawing miracle because it is inimitable or whatever other piece of art and literature that has been done which is inimitable.

First of all I don't understand what is the point of making that kind of argument, what is he trying to say that the Quran is written in such a way that no one else can write such a piece or work anymore or no one has ever done so?

If that is his only miracle, I think, we should let him use that as his weapon and make an ass of himself because I am pretty sure no one is impressed by that argument.
- zooby
- Ex-Muslim
- Snoozin'
- offline
Time complexity analysis
Reply #11 - March 02, 2013, 05:31 PM

I agree, no point in debunking something that's not a very convincing argument in the first place.

Join us on chat. Click here.
- dr_sloth
- Pub Regular
- Orthodox Atheist
- offline
Time complexity analysis
Reply #12 - March 02, 2013, 05:57 PM

but then we would have nothing to debunk. Its not particularly worse than any other argument for islam. They all suck buraq balls.
- deusvult
- O......O
- Pub Regular
- offline
Time complexity analysis
Reply #13 - March 02, 2013, 06:19 PM

Quote from: zooby on March 02, 2013, 10:42 AM
The problem in a simple case can definitely be solved in polynomial time. Say we have a very simple formal grammar. Our language consists simply of phrases in the structure

[Noun] [Verb] [Noun]

Lets say we have N nouns in our language and V verbs. Then we have (N x V x N) = VN^2 possible distinct valid phrases. Then lets say we also have a list of phrases that is claimed to contain all of the phrases possible in this limited grammar. The problem is then just reduced to counting the number of distinct valid phrases in the list and seeing if it is equal to VN^2. To count the distinct number of phrases in the list (lazily) would take O(L^2) time, L being the length of the list then the final checking operation would be O(1).

Sooo yeah it's definitely not intractable for a simple limited grammar. (When I say grammar I mean formal context-free grammar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context-free_grammar) You just need to be able to calculate the number of distinct valid phrases using the formal grammar. I suppose that's where the trouble comes in because Arabic is not really that simple.

The problem is no language is that simple because of recursion and context. It would be far more plausible if the Quran had stayed one specific form because then you'd have limitations. For instance this poetic form is X lines, with Y rhyming scheme, there are Z amount of words that end with Y rhyming scheme and so a finite limit on combinations.

So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
My political philosophy below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
Just kidding, here are some true heros
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
- zooby
- Ex-Muslim
- Snoozin'
- offline
Time complexity analysis
Reply #14 - March 02, 2013, 06:25 PM

Yeah I've forgotten a lot about formal grammars and their limitations but it seems like things would be a lot more complicated in the case of an actual natural language.

Join us on chat. Click here.
- e-raja
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Time complexity analysis
Reply #15 - March 02, 2013, 06:53 PM

Is hamza claiming that he has tested all possible combination of the arabic language and it is impossible to produce anything like the Quran.

Wouldn't it be easier if he actually showed all his workings on how he reached this conclusion and review his work accordingly. Im sure he had an article on the linguistic miracle but how on earth did he manage to figure this particular claim out because I don't remember him showing exactly how he came to the conclusion.
- dr_sloth
- Pub Regular
- Orthodox Atheist
- offline
Time complexity analysis
Reply #16 - March 02, 2013, 08:02 PM

Quote
What makes the Qur’an a miracle, is that it is impossible for a human being to compose something like it, as it lies outside the productive capacity of the nature of the Arabic language. The productive capacity of nature, concerning the Arabic language, is that any grammatically sound expression of the Arabic language will always fall with-in the known Arabic literary forms of prose and poetry. All of the possible combinations of Arabic words, letters and grammatical rules have been exhausted and yet its literary form has not been matched linguistically. The Arabs, who were known to have been Arabic linguists par excellence, failed to successfully challenge the Qur’an.

if that is not conclusive proof, then you are just a hater. possibly a jew.

Btw, even his definition of 'miracle' is stolen from WLC
- e-raja
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Time complexity analysis
Reply #17 - March 02, 2013, 09:22 PM

ye lol It really is amazing that he can basically just say that the linguistic form has not been matched and therefore its a miracle. Who knew it took no more that 2 lines of assertions to prove this stuff. I guess I must be a jew sympathiser for wanting a bit more in way of details.
- deusvult
- O......O
- Pub Regular
- offline
Time complexity analysis
Reply #18 - March 02, 2013, 10:43 PM

Quote from: dr_sloth on March 02, 2013, 08:02 PM

if that is not conclusive proof, then you are just a hater. possibly a jew.

Btw, even his definition of 'miracle' is stolen from WLC

what does "matching its linguistic form" even mean?

So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
My political philosophy below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
Just kidding, here are some true heros
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
- dr_sloth
- Pub Regular
- Orthodox Atheist
- offline
Time complexity analysis
Reply #19 - March 02, 2013, 10:54 PM

i dont know, but 'The Muslim Aristotle' is a 'senior researcher', so whatever it means, I have no doubt that it is brilliant.

He is certainly an expert on Quantum Mechanics, Evolution, Embryology, Geology, History, Cosmology, Psychology, Philosophy, Logic, Mathematics, and Religion. I don't know why you find it hard to believe that he is also an expert on Linguistics.
- e-raja
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Time complexity analysis
Reply #20 - March 02, 2013, 11:26 PM

Quote from: deusvult on March 02, 2013, 10:43 PM
what does "matching its linguistic form" even mean?

I have been trying to figure that out for quite sometime.

Dr sloth you forgot to mention that he is also an expert in outdated cliches about Sharia.
1« Previous thread | Next thread »