(Long) Re: Autocoding project proposal.

[Timothy Rue]

On 11-Feb-02 12:24:37 David Masterson <dmaster at synopsys.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Timothy Rue writes:

>> On 07-Feb-02 11:39:14 David Masterson <dmaster at synopsys.com> wrote:

>>> You might be the first to make the claim that those principles can
>>> be represented in "nine commands".  However, so far, your
>>> definition of the "nine commands" isn't clear enough to determine
>>> whether your claim is valid.

>> David, the biggest hurdle I see you dealing with is your belief that
>> the VIC and it's nine commands are, or make up, a language.

>I didn't say that exactly -- but you're close.

>> The VIC is not a language, it is an identification of unavoidable
>> physics in how we use abstraction. You can change the labels
>> attached to the action set all you want, but the action set is
>> physics, unchangeable.

>Computers deal in "language" of one sort or another.  Computers boil
>everything (that they can handle!) down to a series of bits and
>various processes for manipulating those bits.  Problems are
>abstractly represented in one of the languages that the computer
>understands so that it may deal with the problem.

>If the problem of the VIC cannot be abstractly represented in a
>computer language, then perhaps the VIC is not something that can be
>implemented on a computer.

So what is it? A series of bits or a language?

Gee and I always though that if you give a human to many switches to deal
with that they would create "abstraction word = bit sequence/combo" to
deal with the mass of bits. Just becaue it looks like a language doesn't
mean it is.


>> So I've asked for help in creating the validation. <shrug> And I've
>> gotten alot of Nos.... suggesting there is interest in staying
>> ignorant or widespread (trained?) ignorance regarding how to
>> advance.

>Or you haven't given us anything we can deal with.  Note, if we wanted
>to remain ignorant, we could simply just stop talking to you.  You
>have an audience and your "10 minutes of fame", but, if you cannot
>express your problem in understandable fashion, we will go on to other
>things that we do understand.

Sure I've given you a bunch of reflection to deal with (what you do in all
you do) and 10 minutes of fame defined as what all that has happened here
is not, nor will it ever be, "fame".

>That will be your fault -- not ours.

"we", "our"..... "mine" ....... many against The One? hmmmmm...

In other words, you know I'm right. Just look at all the nowhere responses
to "afraid of autocoding" post. I never asked for those who chose to be
negatove to respond at all. Why they did, is because they always knock
down project proposals? Or because they want to knock down autocoding?

Certainly you know the answer that only years of experience in dealing
with the computer industry from the outside has given me.

You also know the difference between a language and an all that a language
is not.

>--
>David Masterson                dmaster AT synopsys DOT com
>Sr. R&D Engineer               Synopsys, Inc.
>Software Engineering           Sunnyvale, CA


---
*3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!*
   *~ ~ ~      Advancing How we Perceive and Use the Tool of Computers!*
Timothy Rue      What's *DONE* in all we do?  *AI PK OI IP OP SF IQ ID KE*
Email @ mailto:timrue at mindspring.com      >INPUT->(Processing)->OUTPUT>v
Web @ http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/  ^<--------<----9----<--------<