quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

algorithmic proofs are independent of how the computer is organized.

you're saying that a computer cannot programme itself right?

No.  I'm saying nothing like that.  I'm saying that it doesn't matter what the computer you are running an algorithm on it still maintains the same complexity class.  If it's O(n) it's always O(n) it doesn't matter if it's a TI-85 Calculator, a quantum machine or a Setun (I mention this a lot because it's a ternary machine - that is it uses trinary code not binary)

[sarkeizen]

Mark E'An algorithmic proof establishes that a given algorithm yields an intended manipulation of input information.'

A quenco or anything like a quenco is a oneway valve.for energetic electrons and hence for energy.a passive demon doesn't need 'intention' to manipulate.it is manipulation

You're misunderstanding the word 'intention'.  Mark is talking about the PROOF not the device.  An algorithm on a device operates in it's complexity class regardless of if it was developed deliberately to do that or not.  When you write a proof you intend to demonstrate something - because - you know - a person is writing the proof.

Are you ready to say that you have no idea what you're talking about?  Or do you want to keep picking words out of sentences you don't understand and use them in a completely different way in hopes that you can either distract from or dismiss the question at hand?   Seriously go back to scamming people about vitamin supplements or whatever it is you do. Used car salesmen like yourself are pretty useless in terms of adding to the body of science.   

[MarkE]

Mark E'An algorithmic proof establishes that a given algorithm yields an intended manipulation of input information.'

A quenco or anything like a quenco is a oneway valve.for energetic electrons and hence for energy.a passive demon doesn't need 'intention' to manipulate.it is manipulation

No the various devices that PJH has proposed over the years are not capable of performing such a task.  They never have.  They never will.

[profitis]

@sarkeizen:from wiki:'Applied to the Maxwell's demon/Szilard engine
scenario, this suggests that it might be possible to
"read" the state of the particle into a computing
apparatus with no entropy cost; but only if the
apparatus has already been SET into a known state,
rather than being in a thermalised state of
uncertainty. To SET (or RESET) the apparatus into
this state will cost all the entropy that can be saved
by knowing the state of Szilard's particle.'

This is all bullshit BECAUSE we are dealing with switching between a quantum energy requirement and a non-quantum energy requirement.those two requirements are juxtaposed and in opposition and seperate to each other.they don't CROSS LINES..put simply: switching a quenco on satisfies its quantum energy requirements at the expense of its kelvin kinetic(non-quantum) requirements.switching a quenco off satisfies its non-quantum kelvin(kinetic) requirements at the cost of its quantum(electrostatochemical) requirements.the quantum(electrostatic) world is see-sawing the non-quantum(kinetic energy) world because they are interswitchable.  this quenco system is compatible with your proof because the following algorithmic two-bits switching can effect huge sums of particles and hence energy differences each time the switch is thrown: quantum/nonquantum.it takes DOWNhill energy requirements to switch this switch,bothways brother. You neglected to bring ENERGY changes into your argument and as you know info and energy go hand-in-hand.you didnot address energy changes at all.

[sarkeizen]

@sarkeizen:from wiki:'Applied to the Maxwell's demon/Szilard engine

I'm not talking about Maxwell's Demon at all.  Not in the tiniest aspect. In fact at no point in this short exchange between you and I do I even mention it.  I'm talking about complexity theory and in particular the BBBV theorem.  Which states the maximal speedup for a quantum device is O(n^1/2).   Philip's device is using quantum mechanics to do it's work.  You say Philips device sorts instantaneously.  Therefore it is providing a quantum speedup better than O(n^1/2) hence.  It is not a quantum device.  Thus Philip's device can not work.

Isn't it interesting how utterly lost you get when you don't have something to misinterpret?