Phil Innes AKA Chess One wrote:
>The last big barny I had with a computer geek
...in which you were soundly trounced.
>was over the term Turing Engine, which he
....Correctly...
>inisisted was Turing Machine,
....and it still is.
> despite 100,000 googled references to 'Engine',
This is the reason why so many people call you a liar Phil.
The first time you made the above claim, it could have been
confused with an honest mistake, but when you try it after
being corrected multiple times, you are just plain telling
a fib Here is that correction once again.
Phil Innes AKA Chess One is counting every webpage that has
the word engine anywhere in it plus the word Turing anywhere
in it. There are fewer than 600 references to the actual
phrase "Turing Engine" in the resuts of a Google search, and
they are mostly either refutations of his claims, someone who
misremembered the correct term, or someone who speaks another
language and has trouble with English. The following links
prove this.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Turing+Engine%22
http://www.google.com/search?Turing-Engine
There are over 400,000 Google hits for "Turing Machine", most
of which refer to the Turing Machine invented by Alan Turing.
Turing himself always called it his machine, not his engine.
That's because it *is* a machine, not an engine. The two are
not the same thing at all.
>despite Babbage,
Babbage called his invention the Difference Engine, because he
too understood the difference between an engine and a machine.
>despite the idea of the idea not being the same as any
>instance of its manifestation.
Blather that Phil Innes hopes will distract the reader.
>Thus, my correspondent was dull, lazy,
And, once again as usual, Phill Innes engages in personal attacks
and insults when, once again as usual, he has been shown to be wrong.
>a pedant,
Thanks!
>not interested in what 100,000 other people said,
Not interested in your false claims about what 100,000 other
people said, actually.
>especially those who were more formal than he,
The fewer than 600 references (not 100,000) are anything but
"formal." They are mostly either refutations of his claims,
someone who misremembered the correct term, or someone who
is a native speaker of another language and has trouble picking
the correct English word while translating..
>and not aware of Idea as a factor independent of it implementation.
More blather that Phil Innes hopes will distract the reader.
>So... not any scientist, but a mechanic.
Phil now engages in the Ad Hominem fallacy.
>The evidence is against you.
Only if you are willing to tell lies to manufacture evidence.
Which, as we have seen many times, you are very much willing to do.
|
