THE HOLY GRAIL ~ CANTOR DISPROOF
in [Physics]
|
Prev: A tribute to Martin Gardner
Next: Virgo, Fornax and Hydra-Cen superclusters Chapt 11, Space is EM; magnet & iron filings Experiment #108; ATOM TOTALITY
From: Sam Wormley on 3 Jun 2010 13:03 On 6/3/10 1:40 AM, |-|ercules wrote: > HAHA NOBODY here has the requisite IQ to work out what function my > computer model is emulating. Yet you all knock > it as nonsense. Why should we listen to a guy who can't even use an alphabet set of symbols to spell his own name correctly? Turing machines are not an effective way to model scientific processes! A Turing machine is a theoretical device that manipulates symbols contained on a strip of tape. Despite its simplicity, a Turing machine can be adapted to simulate the logic of any computer algorithm, and is particularly useful in explaining the functions of a CPU inside of a computer. --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine I worked my share of tasks with Turing machines in graduate school. There more efficient ways of modeling physical reality.
From: George Greene on 3 Jun 2010 13:19 On May 29, 3:46 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Why is the axiomatic method legitimate? Why is this question legitimate? Even if the axiomatic method is ILlegitimate, it still produces the results it produces. Either you are interested or you are not. But nobody has any grounds for ATTACKING any of these results. If you have one s and you put another s on the right of it, then you get ss. That's just the way IT IS.
From: |-|ercules on 3 Jun 2010 15:04 "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote > > Why should we listen to a guy who can't even use an alphabet > set of symbols to spell his own name correctly? > There more efficient ways of modeling physical reality. You do realize nobody has managed to correct my grammar without making a mistake themselves? Yet alone correcting one of my theories! What about practical implementation in molecular computers? Wouldn't the simplest fetch cycle play a role? Herc
From: Androcles on 3 Jun 2010 15:37 "George Greene" <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote in message news:7e3b7838-873e-4166-87bb-c4861edb103a(a)e6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... On May 29, 3:46 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Why is the axiomatic method legitimate? Why is this question legitimate? Even if the axiomatic method is ILlegitimate, it still produces the results it produces. Either you are interested or you are not. But nobody has any grounds for ATTACKING any of these results. If you have one s and you put another s on the right of it, then you get ss. That's just the way IT IS. =========================================== True enough, but how are we to know you didn't put the s to the left of the s and get ss instead?
From: Sam Wormley on 3 Jun 2010 16:40
On 6/3/10 2:04 PM, |-|ercules wrote: > "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote >> >> Why should we listen to a guy who can't even use an alphabet >> set of symbols to spell his own name correctly? > >> There more efficient ways of modeling physical reality. > > You do realize nobody has managed to correct my grammar without > making a mistake themselves? Yet alone correcting one of my theories! > > What about practical implementation in molecular computers? Wouldn't > the simplest fetch cycle play a role? > > Herc > Read up on quantum computing. |