The following exchange with Guy Macon is illustrative of why some people
call others liars - a factor very prevalent on newsnet - and a careful
reading of the script shows that there is agreement on two terms, but not
the same understanding of the terms! And there is the fly in the ointment!
Certainly it seems prudent to look at these statements before becoming
attached to any result or opinion, otherwise we are in grave danger of
reducing the term liar to mere emotional levels of reaction, while
committing the NewSpeak Sin of making Liar=Truth Sayer.
>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.
**Okay - (1) there are the terms in question Engine and Machine, which GC
considers not synonyms, but one is correct the other not.
> 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,
** (2) If you google, as above "Turing Engine" as I have just redone you
get
Results 1 - 10 of about 768,000 for Turing Engine. (0.27 seconds)
and
they are mostly either refutations of his claims, someone who
misremembered the correct term,
** (3) GC has done more research than me! of found of 768,000 records, 600
which... Really? This is where his comments break down into the literally
impossible. How can he have reviewed all of those references in order to
make his statement? Mr. Macon should note the content of comment #9 below.
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.
** Ah! (4) So we agree that they are not the same thing at all! Which was
my
original point :) Therefore what remains as difference is 'what Turing
always called it'. Again see #9 below.
>despite Babbage,
Babbage called his invention the Difference Engine, because he
too understood the difference between an engine and a machine.
** (5) More agreement! And I already pointed the modern origin of the term
citing Babage in my orginal material.
>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.
** (6) But Macon doesn't understand one of the terms, and a sentence
describing the difference is in his words 'blather'. Why would the very
definition of two terms in question 'distract' anyone else, and why would
I
'hope' it would? Now - GC does not offer his own sense of the difference
in
use of these terms, or feel he even needs to state one in order to render
those who did do 'blatherers'. And so having agreed the terms are
different,
what is the provenance of his argument? He seemingly understands 'machine'
but not 'engine', at least not to the extent that he is willing to write
his
own sense of each term, so as to differentiate them.
>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.
** (7) GC says he 'shows' but actually skips defining one term in relation
to the other. What is shown is that he didn't do that, either previously,
or
is prepared to do so now. This, for him, is a personal attack for others
to
point to the difference - but its no innocent game he plays since he
incites
the issue by stating that others are 'shown to be wrong'. Whereas, they
have
been shown no difference at all by Guy Macon.
>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."
** (8) I do not /pretend/ to have read even 600 of the google citations,
nermind 768,000, and suffice myself with just two of them. One I gave
before
was the FORMAL and normative use of the term 'engine' by an Australian
University in anticipation of a paper on a 'True Turing Engine", and here
is
another, which I think the candid reader will admit is relatively formal,
since it reads,
Alan Turing's Automatic Computing Engine: The Master Codebreaker's
Struggle
to Build the Modern Computer (Hardcover)
by B. Jack Copeland (Editor)
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..
** (9) I'm afraid that is rather a stretch since the blurb attached to the
book above actually continues: "In 1945 Turing drew up his revolutionary
design for an electronic computing machine-his Automatic Computing Engine
('ACE'). A pilot model of the ACE ran its first program in 1950 and the
production version, the 'DEUCE', went on to become a cornerstone of the
fledgling British computer industry. The first 'personal' computer was
based
on Turing's ACE." Perhaps Mr. Macon thinks the book is incorrect, and Jack
Copeland, editor, also wrong?
>and not aware of Idea as a factor independent of it implementation.
More blather that Phil Innes hopes will distract the reader.
** (10) As well as myself, the editor of the book, Macon presumably also
thinks Turing blathers, <right ACE?>
>So... not any scientist, but a mechanic.
Phil now engages in the Ad Hominem fallacy.
** (11) Not at all - I am stating that as a mechanic or a technologist,
you
do not understand the difference between the terminology of device which
incoroporates the idea, and the idea itself, neither do you understand or
even acknowledge the difference to such an extent that you can state it.
** (12) Should Guy Macon wish to review what other people understand he
will inform himself by reading a bit more on the subject than is
'trade-knowledge' since the terms I use are known to others, they are not
ancient, and to conclude I note that the date of the 'Engine' title above
is
recent:
a.. Hardcover: 558 pages
a.. Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA; New Ed edition (June 30,
2005)
a.. Language: English
a.. ISBN-10: 0198565933
a.. ISBN-13: 978-0198565932
>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.
** My lies being presumably demonstrated by citing their sources as above
-
as I did before. But you are not a liar Mr. Macon, you are simple not
correct in this instance. Phil Innes
|
