Re: logical paradoxes

From: Kenneth Doyle (nobody_at_notmail.com)
Date: 08/19/04 

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 01:34:00 GMT

Traveler <traveler@nospam.com> wrote in
news:3vr7i09hq0c3r1s17nl7vta81h06mbcafp@4ax.com:

> In article <Xns954A654B6E997nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5>, Kenneth
> Doyle <nobody@notmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Traveler <traveler@nospam.com> wrote in
>>news:7ac7i0hf01n7rm5smpollbjujt5nb65run@4ax.com:
>>
>>> In article <mULUc.275018$a24.36851@attbi_s03>, patty
>>> <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The structure of the addressing system does not need to be based on
>>>>characters.
>>>
>>> You're kidding me? Bit addressing is a known thing in computer
>>> addressing. A memory address points to the first bit in a sequence
>>> of bits. Each bit must be addressed differently.
>>
>>That's just wrong. You can't address a single bit at all. In order
>>to read or write a single bit, you have to read a byte then apply a
>>bit mask then (if you're writing) write the entire byte back to the
>>memory location it was read from.
>
> What are you, a wise guy? And what do you think applying a bit mask
> is? It is an indirect way of addressing the position of the bit within
> the byte/word that contains it.

It's necessarily indirect, there being no direct way to address the bit.

> Every bit has a distinct and unique
> position within the word, no? This is what is meant by the address of
> a bit.

That would be the bit's position within the byte.

> Some processors have bit-oriented instructions which allows one
> to operate on addressable bits without using masks.

Such as?

> Deny at your own
> detriment.

I'm not denying anything, show me the specific instructions.

> This is all I'm gonna say on this subject because I am
> rapidly losing interest.

Is that meant to pre-empt my request for specifics? 

-- 
CodeCutter - good, fast and cheap; pick two.