Re: [PO] Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?
From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 09/01/04
- Next message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: [PO] Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Previous message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: [PO] Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- In reply to: Peter Olcott: "Re: [PO] Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Next in thread: Acme Diagnostics: "Re: [PO] Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Reply: Acme Diagnostics: "Re: [PO] Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 06:33:14 -0500
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 00:12:50 GMT, "Peter Olcott"
<olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"David C. Ullrich" <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message news:52m8j0t1le7e4lu2c71ddtilkvqn5315tm@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 00:35:37 +0200, Jym <moyen@loria.fr> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 29 Aug 2004, Peter Olcott wrote:
>> >
>> >> Since I accept your claim to have a PhD in computer science and
>> >> hold that rank of associate professor, I will give your response a
>> >> much higher weight of priority, and carefully study this today. I just
>> >> printed it out.
>> >
>> >1/ Do we really have to show our academic titles in order to be read by
>> >you ?
>> >2/ Do you have a PhD in computer science that will give us reasons to read
>> >you ?
>>
>> read the start of the earlier threads: he has a bs in cs and he once
>> took a course in this stuff. the reason we should pay attention to him
>> is he's a self-admitted genius who understands the issues here better
>> than anyone in history.
>
>I never took a course on this stuff. I have several patent pending
>inventions that are somewhat related to this material. Whether or
>not I understand (at least some aspect of) the issues better than
>anyone else in history remains to be seen.
really? your backpedalling today is fascinating - in the past you've
stated quite explicitly, many times, that you understand all this
better than anyone in history. when people asked whether you really
meant to say you understood things better than church, godel and
turing you replied that yes, you'd noticed things they missed.
>This all depends upon
>the outcome of my discussion with newstome@comcast.net At
>this point it looks like it could go either way.
only to you.
>> a naive observer might find that a little implausible given the way
>> his claims keep changing. but no, when he says x is white one day
>> and x is black the next day that's just 'nuances'.
>>
>> a fascinating aspect of all this is that he gets irritated when people
>> paraphrase/interpret the things he says. we must always reply to
>> -exactly- what he writes, because he always says -exactly- what he
>> means - the reason people don't understand him is that they don't
>> realize he means exactly what he says.
>
>> >3/ When you just answer to a very small part of a very long message, could
>> >learn how to destroy inwanted lines (and thus increase slightly the
>> >signal/noise ratio) ?
>
************************
David C. Ullrich
sorry about the inelegant formatting - typing
one-handed for a few weeks...
- Next message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: [PO] Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Previous message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: [PO] Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- In reply to: Peter Olcott: "Re: [PO] Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Next in thread: Acme Diagnostics: "Re: [PO] Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Reply: Acme Diagnostics: "Re: [PO] Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
