Re: logical paradoxes

From: patty (pattyNO_at_SPAMicyberspace.net)
Date: 08/19/04 

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 03:17:41 GMT

Kenneth Doyle wrote:
> 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?
>
>

Let me try to put your guys out of your misery. There are many
addressing schemes than can be devised by man. Many of these addressing
schemes assign some some mark to some thing and provide at minimum two
functions:

store (mark) = content
content = retrieve(mark)

The implication is that that given the mark you can retrieve that which
was previously associate with that mark. Storing a sentence as a
sequence of contiguous RAM locations with either a character length or a
terminal character specifying the end of the sentence, is just one of
the many ways to implement a sentence addressing scheme, in which case
the RAM address of the first character (or length, or header) might be
used as the mark. Another popular method is to use a URI as the mark
and use http GET as the retrieval function. Note that the two functions
given above can function quite independently of these underlying details
of implementation.

Now once we have a system of unique marks associated with sentences, we
can construct other functions that refer to various other aspects of
those sentences referenced by those marks. Here are some suggestions:

parseTree = parse(mark)
boolSentence = propositionalAttitude(mark)
ghostVariable = proposition(mark)

The idea that a mark used to reference a sentence must refer only its
first letter should be recorded in the Usenet annals of idiotic tom foolery.

I said all that just to justify my assertion: "The structure of the
addressing system does not need to be based on characters" which
tragically started this thread.

This is the absolute end of this thread. There is no possible rebuttal
to my analysis ;) (Who is she kidding)

patty