Sun, 11 Jul 1999 17:32:12 -0700
> > Here are some randomly generated strings for your consideration.
> > -A computer is a construct of meta-information.
> Hmm... i always thought a computer was a physical device that processed
I have noticed that the same computation can be carried out on a variety of
physical devices. A system of gears and punch cards or a set of hydraulic valves
could compute the same programs as a digital computer of the same size. Clearly
the physical device is irrelevant! The one thing that remains constant is the
information that describes the compatable but radically diffirent machines! I
could remove the machine entirely and you could still execute the program
manually. Certainly there is great benefit to having the fastest physical system
you can find will have you grinning more than any less efficient system.
> > -Any unambiguous form of information can be used to make a computer.
> Uhh... (:-))
Okay Lets say you had a ton of kumoquats and banannas to compute with. Lets say
you wring a handfull of kumoquats with two banannas and call it a fruitcake. Or
lay two banannas across each other and call it an "alanis silly". With one
kumoquat and 8 or so banannas you can create a starburst. Then with the banannas
or kumoquats you can either determine that I am avoiding my homework or lay them
out in lines that connect the alanissillys and fruitcakes. With that set of
symbols alone it should be possible to specify a computation. The only trick is
to come up with the rules that govern it. My mind isn't up to it at the moment
but I am certain that with an appropriate set of rules it can be made to support
the execution of a program, any program! Mechanically the system would rely
heavily on humans moving tons of banannas around and shoveling kumoquats so I
don't expect it to be practical, merely possible.
> > -Any ordered set of numbers communicates a unique message.
> No... a set of numbers doesn't communicate anything unless someone >wants it to; a set of numbers could communicate anything depending on the language it was communicated in.
Perhaps. That is a question in number theory. It and information theory should
be able to answer that question.
> > -The code used for translating messages in any language into ordered sets of numbers is universal....
> How do you "translate" something into sets of numbers? You'd need to have a language that used sets of numbers as the syntax first; there'd be many different kinds of languages, so there'd need to be different algorithms of translation for different source and target languages.
That may turn out to be the case. I am not really sure of the answer yet.
Clearly the numbers would not be a discrete one to one translation as with godel
numbering but rather express a pattern or mathematical idea. Then creating more
interesting ideas would be a question of finding the product of the strings you
want to combine. It would require a great deal of factorization. Practically
this system would be most appropriate during the transition to quantum
> > -With a system of ordered sets of numbers a "Natural Computer" can be >created.
> Well, maybe _with_ them you could (you could make a computer with >cheese, lettuce, and tomatoes too), but you're going to need some silicon or something if you're really going to make a computer...
Quantum fluks. or Nanoscale transistors.
> What are you trying to say?
3y3 4m l4m3.
> Are you really just saying that you find sets of numbers interesting?
They are! In an absolute sense not just a subjective sense!
> I find them somewhat interesting too, but it is silly to make these >vague claims about what one can do with them.
I make no claims! Only hypothesi!!! In my first message I did not say "I claim
the following" instaid I said "Here are some randomly generated strings for your
consideration." I didn't want to have to eat words later so I carefully made it
so that I couldn't be blamed for what I wrote because I could use randomness as
a scapegoat. =P
Pyramid schemes are illegal.
Social Security is a pyramid scheme.