On 8 Oct 2009 17:02:51 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>Though you may have noticed that I often tend to spell words the British 
>way.  I realise that it's important to write to my intended audience. ;-)

And so it is :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:12:36 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 8 Oct 2009 17:02:51 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>Though you may have noticed that I often tend to spell words the British
>>way.  I realise that it's important to write to my intended audience.
>>;-)
> 
> And so it is :)

Which is why I don't use SMS much. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New schrieb:
> clipka wrote:
>> where we'd replace some rarely-used characters with the German umlauts, 
> 
> I'm pretty sure this is why Americans call "#" the "pound sign." It's on 
> the keyboard in the same place the Brits put their currency marker.

Indeed. As a matter of fact, just like the Germans used a variation of 
the ASCII code, so did the British, using the "#" code point for their 
currency sign.

I'm pretty sure the origin of calling "#" the "pound sign" was from 
Americans being unaware that the Brits, when talking about that code 
point, were actually talking about a totally different symbol.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/08/09 02:26, smc### [at] csccom wrote:
> When we introduced English to the world we did it at the point of a gun
> and with gunboat diplomacy. The American method was more economic,
> supplying cheap(ish) computer products and English language films.
> Somehow that seems more acceptable to people at large.

	Umm... yeah. I can't fathom why people would rather watch a movie than 
be riddled with bullets...

-- 
(((((((HYPNOTIC)))))))(((((((TAGLINE)))))))

Post a reply to this message

Darren New schrieb:
> clipka wrote:
>> - Even its 1943 successor, "Colossus", was not Turing-complete, and 
>> programmable only by re-wiring.
> 
> Just to avoid confusion, everyone should be aware that Turing machines 
> are programmable only by re-wiring. Those two clauses have nothing to do 
> with each other. :-)

To the contrary, they have a /lot/ to do with each other.

While it is true that the theoretical construct known as a "Turing 
machine" is "hard-wired" by definition, this is not necessarily the case 
for a system /simulating/ such a machine. (Actually building a true 
Turing machine is outright impossible, as it requires an infinitely long 
memory tape, so a simulation is the closest you can get anyway.)

In fact, such a system to simulate a Turing machine may even be another 
Turing machine, designed for the purpose of simulating any of a whole 
/class/ of Turing machines, the exact details of which would be read 
from the initial data on the tape. While the simulating Turing machine 
would still by definition be hard-wired regarding its own operation, it 
would be programmable regarding the simulated machine.

This can be pushed even so far as to design a Turing machine that would 
be capable of simulating /any/ possible Turing machine (including itself 
if required): A "Universal Turing machine". (Again, actually building 
such a thing s impossible, but only for the same reason as is building 
any other Turing machine.)

Now stating that a machine is "Turing-complete" is equivalent to saying 
that it is capable of simulating not just /some/ Turing machine, but a 
/Universal/ Turing machine - which by definition /is/ fully programmable 
regarding the simulated Turing machine.

Therefore, a machine programmable only by re-wiring /cannot/, by 
definition, be Turing-complete.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

 > as it requires an infinitely long memory tape

No it doesn't. It only requires an unbounded memory tape. There's a huge 
difference.

> Therefore, a machine programmable only by re-wiring /cannot/, by 
> definition, be Turing-complete.

I don't think that's right. Wire up the computer to be a UTM, and it's 
Turing complete.

Unless you are unable to wire up Colossus in such a way that it can 
interpret arbitrary Turing machine programs, it it Turing complete. I.e., 
Colossus would be the "simulating" Universal Turing Machine on which you 
could interpret any other Turing machine.

 > Now stating that a machine is "Turing-complete" is equivalent to saying 
that it is capable of simulating not just /some/ Turing machine, but a 
/Universal/ Turing machine

Any real machine capable of simulating an arbitrary Turing machine is Turing 
complete. The only limitation would be whether Colossus had enough wires to 
do the job, really. But you could conceive of a machine with hard wires that 
simulates a Turing machine.

Indeed, you're using one.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:31:45 -0500, Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:

>On 10/08/09 02:26, smc### [at] csccom wrote:
>> When we introduced English to the world we did it at the point of a gun
>> and with gunboat diplomacy. The American method was more economic,
>> supplying cheap(ish) computer products and English language films.
>> Somehow that seems more acceptable to people at large.
>
>	Umm... yeah. I can't fathom why people would rather watch a movie than 
>be riddled with bullets...

I wrote that badly and reversed the meaning. :(

To rephrase what I wrote. Violence has been with us since time immemorial and
seems a natural, if reprehensible, way of doing things. Conversely after the
economic benefits of buying cheep imports have faded and people awaken to find
that own industries have declined. A greater resentment is often found. They
don't say "it is our fault for not supporting our own industries" but "Damn
Americans forcing their way of life on us and there is nothing we can do about
it, not even rebel"  
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 8 Oct 2009 17:20:53 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:12:36 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 8 Oct 2009 17:02:51 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>Though you may have noticed that I often tend to spell words the British
>>>way.  I realise that it's important to write to my intended audience.
>>>;-)
>> 
>> And so it is :)
>
>Which is why I don't use SMS much. ;-)
>

Old f*rt! ;)

Me too :)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 10/09/09 00:15, Stephen wrote:
> To rephrase what I wrote. Violence has been with us since time immemorial and
> seems a natural, if reprehensible, way of doing things. Conversely after the
> economic benefits of buying cheep imports have faded and people awaken to find
> that own industries have declined. A greater resentment is often found. They
> don't say "it is our fault for not supporting our own industries" but "Damn
> Americans forcing their way of life on us and there is nothing we can do about
> it, not even rebel"

	Yes, but do they not realize the irony? By whining, they're acting very 
American!

<dodges tomato>

-- 
(((((((HYPNOTIC)))))))(((((((TAGLINE)))))))

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:39:25 -0500, Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:

>On 10/09/09 00:15, Stephen wrote:
>> To rephrase what I wrote. Violence has been with us since time immemorial and
>> seems a natural, if reprehensible, way of doing things. Conversely after the
>> economic benefits of buying cheep imports have faded and people awaken to find
>> that own industries have declined. A greater resentment is often found. They
>> don't say "it is our fault for not supporting our own industries" but "Damn
>> Americans forcing their way of life on us and there is nothing we can do about
>> it, not even rebel"
>
>	Yes, but do they not realize the irony? By whining, they're acting very 
>American!
>

Whatever happened to the American frontier spirit?

><dodges tomato>

Bio warfare?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message