|
|
|
| Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 08:18 AM EDT |
And even on those processors that do allow programmers to generate new
instructions, those new instructions cannot do anything that some combination of
the original instructions could not do.
All it does is introduce an additional level of abstraction.
The underlying hardware (whether GPU, CPU, or PLA - they are all equivalent) can
do nothing but combinations of AND, OR, and NOT operations. And those are some
of the foundations of boolean algebra (the other foundations are the rules for
evaluation).[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mrisch on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 08:28 AM EDT |
Yes, we are on the same page. By set of instructions, I mean
a list, combination, what have you of the instructions that
drive the computer.
I hear the pushback from all these comments, and I
understand it, but I'm just not buying it. I do not believe
that because a computer CAN do something that it necessarily
WILL without human intervention telling it to. So when I say
"capability" what I mean is that some human has created a
combination of tasks for the computer that no one else had
asked the computer to do before. I hear that most readers
here disagree with this premise, but it's not a premise
based on lack of logic or understanding. It's a premise
based on end results.
When I buy a general purpose computer, it is going to sit
there like a lump unless I pay someone (or do it myself) to
write programs for it. And most of the time the paycheck is
enough to get the programs we need. But sometimes we want a
bigger reward, in large part to compensate for all the money
spent writing programs that are a complete bust. I hear that
most readers here don't think so. I'm good with that-
there's a lot of disagreement on that issue.
But I am just not buying into the view that because it CAN
be done then when it actually IS done nothing of import has
happened. The universe is made up of atoms. Atoms CAN be
chained into any structure we want. But only SOME structures
have real value, and SOMEONE must combine them.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- disgusting. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 08:45 AM EDT
- Can do vs. Will do - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 08:58 AM EDT
- Ha. You make the complaint of every mathematician makes - Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 09:04 AM EDT
- Your last paragraph is funny. - Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 09:18 AM EDT
- General-purpose computer - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 09:24 AM EDT
- Thanks a lot, and a clarification - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 09:24 AM EDT
- "Capable"? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 09:57 AM EDT
- Patent on problem specification? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 10:03 AM EDT
- Thanks a lot, and a clarification - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 11:10 AM EDT
- Atoms - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 11:12 AM EDT
- People stuck in the wrong environment - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 11:54 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 10:19 AM EDT |
MOTIVATED AND TAUGHT by the creators of the general purpose computer.
Quite literally: they advise the creation of any possible program, using any
possible mathematical algorithm, in their *manuals* -- and then tell you how to
"code" your algorithm so that the computer will understand it!
Your "Hello World" program "plus a computer" is therefore
completely unoriginal, from a patent point of view. It has *copyright*
originality, but not *patent* originality.
I don't see why you are having so much trouble understanding this.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
