silent Lindens???

So its been 8 days since I posted Phillip's challenge and I've not heard anything at all.

/139/e2/125506/1.html

does this mean that;

A. He is admitting he was talking rubbish but is too much of a coward to admit it?
B. Needs more time or people to help him?
C. He is too busy to care about content creators (ie the people who make his world continue to survive) and the problems they face?

Just curious.

Also curious why that has so far been unanswered;
/139/fb/125135/1.html


edit after reply;

As my questions here have been COMPLETELY ignored and some drivel about the wonders of mathmatics has been written I will ask again in another 7 days.

Looking at the challenge I must conclude that the the task of writing an arbitrary inverse layer generator for a flattened image could indeed be written. This is mathematically provable, and should be obvious to anyone with an understanding of linear algebra and general decomposition methods such as Fourier or wavelet decomposition. Usually, the hard part of decomposition is finding the orthonormal basis of the components, but in the case of a photoshop image the orthonormality requirement is lifted and the solution space opens up to an even greater number of infinite solutions.

The problem of splitting a flattened image is an application of independent component analysis. The hardest part would be to split out the relevant components, and fill in the missing pieces, in a way that would fool a human jury. There are an infinite number of both convincing and unconvincing splits, but a sufficiently clever person with enough time on their hands wouldn't find it too hard to generate a very large number of the convincing ones.

While I would rate Philip as sufficiently clever, I doubt he has the time. There are plenty of clever people out there with lots of time; if you opened your challenge to the population at large you might actually get some good solutions to the problem.