Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?

From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 08/28/04 

Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 06:35:44 -0500

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 02:31:58 GMT, "Peter Olcott"
<olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>"David C. Ullrich" <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message news:r9fvi099r26rf54n88hrc723ksln2t3kqn@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 21:52:07 GMT, "Peter Olcott"
>> <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"David C. Ullrich" <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message
>
>news:l8aui0p6bc23gha9gpkd1rr2nofgc83o2u@4ax.com...
>> >> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:13:51 GMT, "Peter Olcott"
>> >> <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >It would seem that a regular Turing Machine would be able
>> >> >to provide protected memory.
>> >>
>> >> it doesn't -matter- one bit. when it's been proved that
>> >> -no- tm has a certain property it follows that a tm
>> >> that provides protected memory doesn't either.
>> >>
>> >> [luckily it also doesn't matter exactly what you mean
>> >> by a tm providing protected memory...]
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ************************
>> >>
>> >> David C. Ullrich
>> >>
>> >> sorry about the inelegant formatting - typing
>> >> one-handed for a few weeks...
>> >
>> >I don't accept that this can be shown until it is shown
>> >for this specific case.
>>
>> whether you accept it or not doesn't matter. you've
>> shown over and over that you're unable to follow the
>> simplest reasoning.
>
>I agree with Marc's assessment of you

i don't recall him giving sany assesment of me. if you're
talking about his assesment of my behavior in olcott threads,
i agree with that as well. so what? that doesn't change the
fact that you've shown over and over that you're unable to
follow the simplest reasoning. also doesn't change the fact
that you've repeatedly shown abysmal ignorance of extremely
basic concepts in a field that you say you understand better
than anyone in history.

i mean it's like somone shows that

[*] 1 + ... + n = n[n+1]/2

for -all- positive integers n. you can't point to any
error in the proof but you say you don't accept it
until it's shown for the specefic case n = 87653456.

>> >Until then it is merely a possibly
>> >false assumption.
>> >
>>
>>
>> ************************
>>
>> David C. Ullrich
>>
>> sorry about the inelegant formatting - typing
>> one-handed for a few weeks...
>
>

************************

David C. Ullrich

sorry about the inelegant formatting - typing
one-handed for a few weeks...