User talk:Mdaviscs

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments on Articles
Hi Mdaviscs, if you have comments you want to make about article content, such as here, this needs to go on the article talk page (Talk:Program synthesis), not on the article itself-- Jac 16888 Talk 09:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Program synthesis has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Program synthesis was changed by Mdaviscs (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.888847 on 2020-07-05T02:59:53+00:00

August 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Program synthesis, you may be blocked from editing. Notfrompedro (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Program synthesis have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Program synthesis was changed by Mdaviscs (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.955472 on 2021-10-17T02:12:30+00:00

@Mdaviscs: Please ask at WP:Teahouse why your edits are being reverted. The problem is that original research (including personal opinions) is not permitted. Johnuniq (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mdaviscs: I was trying to gently guide your edits but will have to take stronger action if you persist in trying to insert your commentary into Program synthesis. I blocked Special:Contributions/2601:184:407F:1AC0:0:0:0:0/64 as the most recent set of IP addresses that have been used to object to the article. The disruption has been going on for over 18 months and it must stop. That means I will need to block you and any other accounts or IPs that attempt to circumvent the previous block. It is common for disagreements to arise. When that happens, the dispute resolution procedures must be followed. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse but any further attempts to put commentary in the article or to repeat worn-out discussion at Talk:Program synthesis will result in a block. Johnuniq (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Program synthesis

 * Moved from my talk. Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem is your statements are not correct. There is inconsistency in the article between the definition of Program Synthesis presented and what you have presented, as well as statements as to what has been done regarding this topic. My statements are not opinions - they are formal statements about the facts. The more time I spend on it the more errors that I discover. All you have to do is answer the questions and substantiate your answers.

The problem is that there has been no progress in Program Synthesis and you state that there has been. Nobody has shown a system where you input a specification and output a program. I have tried to explain that. There is a fair amount of fraud in theoretical computer science publishing and Program Synthesis is the easiest one to detect since it requires someone to write a program that outputs something that most people recognize when they see it. The wiki BE BOLD policy says that people should delete errors. I have only 1 IP address as far as I know. I don't know anything about how IP addresses are set. Here is my last set of questions:

Objections to Claims of Progress

Are claims made in the writing of this article subject to technical scrutiny and verification?

1. The "toy example":

a. It is proving statements but why does this mean that the "program" (single operator) satisfies the specification?

b. Where did the program column come from?

c. Lines 14 to 18 correctly combine the arguments of Resolve into a conjunction (AND) to create the Goal. Line 19 combines the arguments of the Resolve, which are x <= y and ~(x <= y), into a disjunction (OR) to produce TRUE. If we combine them into a conjunction (AND) like the other lines then the result would be x <= y ^ ~(x <= y) which is FALSE. Isn't this inconsistent?

2. "arbitrary new operators and relations can be added by providing their properties as axioms"

a. How do you know that?

3. "a Turing-complete programming language is supported"

a. Can you substantiate this claim?

Thanks.

ː) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdaviscs (talk • contribs) 08:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I moved your comment from my talk page to here as it is a response to my post above. I am an uninvolved administrator who responded to a March 2020 protection request—I have no knowledge of Program synthesis and no desire to debate the topic. Here are some key points:
 * As explained above, placing unsourced commentary in the article is not permitted. Attempts to do that will lead to blocks.
 * Mounting a campaign over 18 months is disruptive. Continuing without following standard procedures will lead to blocks.
 * As mentioned above, dispute resolution is the standard procedure, but that should be followed after asking questions and listening to the responses.
 * Please read WP:TP to learn how talk pages work, and how to include a signature.
 * Unfortunately the issue has been dragging on for too long (over 18 months!) and too much has been written. Normally I would try to work out what is going on and offer pointers on how to proceed but after all the back-and-forth evident on the article talk page it is clear that what is needed now is peace and quiet. If you can work out what WP:RS involves and can focus on a single issue where you believe the article needs improvement based on a reliable source, you might start a new section at article talk with a coherent proposal. However, rehashing old disputes, even if well founded, cannot continue. Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the issue has been dragging on for too long (over 18 months!) and too much has been written. Normally I would try to work out what is going on and offer pointers on how to proceed but after all the back-and-forth evident on the article talk page it is clear that what is needed now is peace and quiet. If you can work out what WP:RS involves and can focus on a single issue where you believe the article needs improvement based on a reliable source, you might start a new section at article talk with a coherent proposal. However, rehashing old disputes, even if well founded, cannot continue. Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Program Synthesis Question

 * ''Moved from my talk. Please stop posting there. If necessary, reply here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Is the following true of what is presented as the Toy Example as written on the Program Synthesis page? If not, can you give an example of a program that the given procedure produces as written on the Program Synthesis page that is not of the form p?s:t ?

This procedure can only produce programs of the form p?s:t.

Thanks. Mdaviscs (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read my above reply. I have no desire to debate the topic. My role is to help reduce disruption at Wikipedia. Discussions here must focus on clear objectives based on reliable sources. People who are unwilling or unable to comply are removed from the project (blocked) because wasting the time and energy of other volunteers is very disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)