(Long) Re: Autocoding project proposal.

[David Masterson]

>>>>> Timothy Rue writes:

> On 07-Feb-02 11:39:14 David Masterson <dmaster at synopsys.com> wrote:

>> You might be the first to make the claim that those principles can
>> be represented in "nine commands".  However, so far, your
>> definition of the "nine commands" isn't clear enough to determine
>> whether your claim is valid.

> David, the biggest hurdle I see you dealing with is your belief that
> the VIC and it's nine commands are, or make up, a language.

I didn't say that exactly -- but you're close.

> The VIC is not a language, it is an identification of unavoidable
> physics in how we use abstraction. You can change the labels
> attached to the action set all you want, but the action set is
> physics, unchangeable.

Computers deal in "language" of one sort or another.  Computers boil
everything (that they can handle!) down to a series of bits and
various processes for manipulating those bits.  Problems are
abstractly represented in one of the languages that the computer
understands so that it may deal with the problem.

If the problem of the VIC cannot be abstractly represented in a
computer language, then perhaps the VIC is not something that can be
implemented on a computer.

> So I've asked for help in creating the validation. <shrug> And I've
> gotten alot of Nos.... suggesting there is interest in staying
> ignorant or widespread (trained?) ignorance regarding how to
> advance.

Or you haven't given us anything we can deal with.  Note, if we wanted
to remain ignorant, we could simply just stop talking to you.  You
have an audience and your "10 minutes of fame", but, if you cannot
express your problem in understandable fashion, we will go on to other
things that we do understand.

That will be your fault -- not ours.

-- 
David Masterson                dmaster AT synopsys DOT com
Sr. R&D Engineer               Synopsys, Inc.
Software Engineering           Sunnyvale, CA