From pycyn@aol.com Mon Aug 13 16:07:15 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 13 Aug 2001 23:07:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 40252 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2001 23:07:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Aug 2001 23:07:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r09.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.105) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Aug 2001 23:07:13 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id r.98.192c4c8b (4404) for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 19:07:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <98.192c4c8b.28a9b794@aol.com> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 19:07:00 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] New to lojban, any suggestions? To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_98.192c4c8b.28a9b794_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_98.192c4c8b.28a9b794_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/13/2001 4:18:38 PM Central Daylight Time, rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes: > It was an example. You're clear on the concept, yes? > > You said that my claim that there is functionality in Linux that Win* > doesn't support was 'unlikely'. I gave you an example. > > It's not a matter of "I don't know how to do it". It's a matter of > "It's impossible without altering the OS or programming in machine > language to get around the OS". > > Counter-example. OK. Thank you, for adding the useful information -- what I asked for -- that it genuinely is impossible. I won't ask to see the proof, since I probably could not follow the details of the systems anyhow. Now for the deeper question: does this mean that MS can't do something that Linux can. That is, is the function which MS can't compute an in=> out function or one used in the internal operations of Linux? If the latter, then no matter how hard it makes step-by-step emulation, it is ultimately not a shortcoming of MS, if it can accomplish anything that Linux can using another line of operation (abaci have lousy TM emulators, but still calculate all the same functions). And, of course, it may make a difference in efficiency of calculation as well. On the other hand, if it is an external function that Linux can and MS can't calculate, that is a serious defect in MS and worth some putdown points (unless there is a coounter case that MS can and Linux can't compute). I thought there were Linux emulators for Windows as well as conversely. --part1_98.192c4c8b.28a9b794_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/13/2001 4:18:38 PM Central Daylight Time,
rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes:


It was an example.  You're clear on the concept, yes?

You said that my claim that there is functionality in Linux that Win*
doesn't support was 'unlikely'.  I gave you an example.

It's not a matter of "I don't know how to do it".  It's a matter of
"It's impossible without altering the OS or programming in machine
language to get around the OS".

Counter-example.  QED.


OK.  Thank you, for adding the useful information -- what I asked for -- that
it genuinely is impossible.  I won't ask to see the proof, since I probably
could not follow the details of the systems anyhow.  

Now for the deeper question: does this mean that MS can't do something that
Linux can.  That is, is the function which MS can't compute an in=> out
function or one used in the internal operations of Linux?  If the latter,
then no matter how hard it makes step-by-step emulation, it is ultimately not
a shortcoming of MS, if it can accomplish anything that Linux can using
another line of operation (abaci have lousy TM emulators, but still calculate
all the same functions).  And, of course, it may make a difference in
efficiency of calculation as well.  On the other hand, if it is an external
function that Linux can and MS can't calculate, that is a serious defect in
MS and worth some putdown points (unless there is a coounter case that MS can
and Linux can't compute).  
I thought there were Linux emulators for Windows as well as conversely. --part1_98.192c4c8b.28a9b794_boundary--