LizR wrote:
On 29 April 2015 at 05:35, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com <mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    On 28 Apr 2015, , Bruce Kellett wrote:


            >  I must admit that I do not know what a computation that
            does not utilize a computing machine (physical) is. Show me
            one, and indicate how it works.


    On Tue, Apr 28, 2015  Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be
    <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:


> This is explained in all textbook in computability theory.

    Hmm, I don't totally understand how this works but apparently there
    are so many examples of ways computations can be performed without
    using physical processes that Bruno is unable to give even one of
    those examples.
        >  It is the kind of "well known fact" that I have been asked to
        not explain in my thesis, as it is known by undergraduate student


    I confess I did not know that "well known fact" and neither did
    anybody in Silicon Valley.  What a shame companies like INTEL IBM
    and Apple have wasted trillions of dollars in building hardware when
    if they had just asked any undergraduate student they could have
    told them how to make a computer without using any matter or energy
    or momentum or spin or electrical charge or anything else that is
    physical. Bruno you really need to start your own company, you'll be
    able to sell Bruno brand computers far cheaper than your competition
    that still makes them out of old fashioned matter and still make a
    big profit. Unlike those other companies you don't have to build
    your computers in China, in fact you don't have to build them at
    all, so your manufacturing costs would be zero! And think of the
    convenience of a smartphone that isn't just thin but takes up no
    space at all in your pocket. I predict that just 6 months after your
    new company's IPO you'll be the world's first trillionaire.

So because Bruno considers that 2+2=4 is true everywhere, at all times, in all universes,

Given the definitions of '2', '4', '+', and '=', '2+2=4' is a tautology. Everywhere and any time you define these things the same way, the same result is obtained. So just where is the calculation?

you think Bruno is saying that someone could build a physical calculator that doesn't use energy?

No. But he seems to think that he can have a non-physical calculator.

Bruce

Would you like to run that logic by me again, or are you being deliberately obtuse for rhetorical effect?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to