It is trivial to demonstrate the validity of the mathematics. Our computers are a bit slow to give a really nice example in a reasonable amount of time (i.e. you probably would turn up your nose at examples that ARE tractable as being too simple). On the other hand, quantum computers can sift extremely large combinatorial spaces in one shot, so that would make the O(k^n) into a O(n), which does make it trivial. And while very simple quantum computers have been built, I certainly don't own one.
Now you seem to be backtracking; perhaps seeking intellectual refuge in the wilderness of potential future engineering breakthroughs...
Don't be a twit. It isn't fantasy engineering, but just substantially fancier versions of existing capabilities. I'm not backtracking; what you take as backtracking is me dropping an argument that isn't going anywhere and trying to drag the argument back to a relevant point. I'm working a lot of hours these days (starting yet another new company) and don't have time to spend on this forum arguing facts that people aren't interested in hearing or even doing the most rudimentary research on.
Let me make this clear: not only were you WRONG to claim that such an exercise was trivial, but you were deceptive when you tried to extrapolate from that alleged triviality the false point that this was mathematically proven.
And this is exactly the kind of bullshit I don't have time for. Have you ever actually picked up a math text relevant to the subject we are talking about? It IS mathematically proven and a fundamental theorem that is used in a dozen different technical fields. The only reason I learned it was that it was a necessary mathematical foundation for work I do. You certainly won't find any mathematicians that will refute it. And it is simply laughable that you blithely confuse "infinite" with "finite but extremely large", which is something no one with any type of serious mathematics background would do. With all due respect, you clearly are not qualified to argue advanced topics of mathematics. You handle the evolution/ID argument pretty well but you are out of your league on the matter of the mathematics.
"It is trivial to demonstrate the validity of the mathematics." - tortoise
Well, since you say that it is "trivial", you'll have no problem producing a demonstration of the mathematics for random noise creating a working version of Abode PhotoShop.
Trivial, indeed...
You said that producing this demonstration is "trivial". You claim that it doesn't require "fantasy engineering".
Please, show me an example of a useful software program self-forming in a random environment.
These are your claims, after all, and you do repeatedly claim that the demonstration is "trivial", so you'll have no trouble producing this demo, correct?!
No, what you are citing is folklore, not science. Nobel Prize winner Illya Prigogine CONCLUSIVELY proved, back in 1987, that the very highest possible levels of order could NOT self-form in a chaotic system. There is a limit in every system as to the maximum level of order that can form naturally from chaos.
That's science. Folklore is that a million monkeys typing on a million keyboards for a million years will produce the collected works of Shakespeare. That's what you're trying to say when you claim that useful software programs can just form on their own in a computer if you leave it on long enough.