quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

Huh? Algorithm proofs have absolutely nothing to do with switches on the inside of a computer?becareful how you answer this

What is an "algorithm proof".  The BBBV is a proof.  It's not an algorithm.

[profitis]

Sarkeizen:'Actually again the BBBV likely applies to Philip's machine. '

Did you write this.if you did how could it apply to philip's machine and at the same time insist that it must remain seperate from machines?

[sarkeizen]

if you did how could it apply to philip's machine and at the same time insist that it must remain seperate from machines?

I have no idea what you wrote means.  Is there a reason you speak Troll so much?

Are you going to tell me what an "algorithm proof" is?  The BBBV is a proof.  Not an algorithm.

[profitis]

Sarkeizen:'How data is encoded....no answer from profitis here.
How the sorted output is read...no answer from profitis here
How the performance scales with input size...one answer based on a prior machine but his new made-up machine we have no output.
I'll add the question: "Is the output deterministic?" to the list.

So no, nothing remotely approaching a definition that would say if the BBBV applies or not.'

What did you mean by the word 'applies'?   

[sarkeizen]

Sarkeizen:'How data is encoded....no answer from profitis here.
How the sorted output is read...no answer from profitis here
How the performance scales with input size...one answer based on a prior machine but his new made-up machine we have no output.
I'll add the question: "Is the output deterministic?" to the list.

So no, nothing remotely approaching a definition that would say if the BBBV applies or not.'

What did you mean by the word 'applies'?   

I'm asserting that the BBBV restricts the creation of a machine like the Philip Hardcastle quenco.  You appear to be arguing that it does not.  That's what is meant by the "BBBV applies"

Notice when you keep all your bullshit and troll-words out of your post.  You get a reply.  Try to follow that pattern in the future.