On Friday, October 18, 2013 7:38:30 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote: > >> It's like this. No matter how you cut it, you're going to get back to > >> the computers where you load instructions with switches. At that point, > >> I'll be very much looking in anticipation to your binary-digit lexer. > > > > Why stop there? If you go back far enough, you've got Babbage with his > > Analytical Engine and his laboriously hand-cast analog gears. > > And there you bring up the heart of it: the confusion in computer > science. thank you. Babbage's differential engine is not doing > *computation* , it is doing *physics*.
And today's computers dont 'do' electronics?? Heres Dijkstra http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD09xx/EWD924.html and search forward to 'magic' > We must draw a line somewhere, > because the digital realm in the machine is so entirely separate from > the physics (and even the physical hardware), that I could make a > whole other universe that does not conform to it. It is a whole other > ModelOfComputation. > > Q.E.D. (Who else is going to have to eat a floppy disk here?) > > Relevant: > > > > http://www.xkcd.com/451/ > *winks*. BTW, all this regarding "models of computation" and such is > relevant to the discussion only because of one thing: I like python. > I will leave that vague response for a later exercise after I get an > invite from a University (MIT?) to head their Computer Engineering > department. Jokes have a propensity to reveal the subconscious of the jokers [Btw that joke is usually called a pun] -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
