quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

Mr sarkeizen your whole friggn argument is that an arrangement of switching (bbbv)

Nope.  That's not my argument.  BBBV has nothing to do with installing a power switch on something. Philip says that the quenco sorts (without a switch).  You say the quenco sorts without a switch.  My argument is about the sorting behavior.   Hence switches = you being a bullshitter.

I'm, as I stated before absolutely eager to discuss your switched bullshit apparatus with your bullshitting self but simply not in this thread.

[profitis]

Sarkeizen:'Nope.  That's not my argument.  BBBV has nothing to do with installing a power switch on something.'

Sorry this arrangement of words won't get you off the hook.bbbv has everything to do with switch ARRANGEMENTS.infact it has so much to do with switches that it's main use is for computer-design and programming.bbbv CAN only be implemented via switching re-arrangement.

Sarkeizen:'Philip says that the quenco sorts (without a switch).
You say the quenco sorts without a switch.'

Naturaly,when its in ON and OFF modes simultaneously,hence the need to freeze-frame it for explano.we can't look at how electrons fly all over the place,we need to describe how they fly all over the place and why.remember when philip said that it will be kinda self-limiting due to the cooling effect? In other words there's an instantaneous downward gradient of discharge from room temp down to equilibrium temp,bang,like the capacitor that it is.

sarkeizen:' My argument is about the sorting behavior.   Hence switches = you being a bullshitter. '

Your weapon is bbbv hence switches= me being highly re-active and making you tremble with fear.

Sarkeizen:'I'm, as I stated before absolutely eager to discuss your switched bullshit apparatus with your bullshitting self but simply not in this thread.'

Let me get this straight.you want to argue using switch-application(bbbv) in this thread but want me to argue using switch-application(bbbv) in another thread? Don't be silly we're going to stay right here mr sarkeizen,especially now that I've got you by the balls.you may leave if you want but I'm staying right here

[sarkeizen]

bbbv has everything to do with switch ARRANGEMENTS.

Nope.  Switches are entirely unnecessary to the proof.  The word "switch" is not even mentioned in the entire paper but you never read it so why would you know that?

infact it has so much to do with switches that it's main use is for computer-design and programming.

Nope.  But if you're right then it should be easy to show me a program that clearly implements the BBBV or a computer design which directly references the BBBV in it's documentation.

But of course...you can't do any of those things because...well...you're bullshitting.   Which seems to be almost the same as saying: "profitis is talking".

[profitis]

Sarkeizen'BBBV which requires no switches'

Algorithm theorems are theorems(non-3dimensional)that require SWITCHES for 3-dimensional(real) implementation.right or wrong

[sarkeizen]

BBBV which requires no switches

Algorithm theorems are theorems(non-3dimensional)that require SWITCHES for 3-dimensional(real) implementation.

Troll-speak.  I have no idea what that means.  Seriously just use English.  Why do you spend so much effort to sound stupid?

However, as I stated the BBBV is a proof, that limits the efficiency of algorithms exploiting quantum effects.  If you don't understand why switches are not important, it's probably because you don't understand the aims of complexity theory or even Computer Science to a large extent.   Computer Science in this sense - isn't really about programming.