🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2018-02-21, Joe Pfeiffer <pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:

> maus <ma...@mail.com> writes:
>
>> On 2018-02-20, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:11:12 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>> <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
>>>> each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
>>>> write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
>>>>
>>>> It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
>>>> have been built with the technology available at the time
>>>> it was first postualted (1935?)
>>>
>>>      I do not think that that is that notable.  The machine could have
>>> been made back in Babbage's time.  (Too bad Babbage did not come up
>>> with something more immediately practical.)
>>
>> AFAIhaveread, the problem was that it not possible to machine parts to
>> the limits that Babbage's machines needed, at that time.
>
> No, it's been pretty well established they could have been.  The problem
> was that he never froze his design.

Ah, some things never change.

    Frozen specs and the Abominable Snowman have a lot in common:
    both are myths, and both melt when enough heat is applied.
      -- unknown

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!