lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:08:11 -0400
From:	"Jason mclaughlin" <>
Subject: working machine

> Anyone familiar with the idea of trying to describe a machine the way
> it works?
> like where it's being a machine working the way of having a loop with
> the problem of being in
> the middle and then to the outside as how the machine can move? so
> like if you were to make it a machine
> that does math the way it works it has machine parts that actually
> move like the way the calculation is done?
> so it moves like if this were to try and move as a real machine:

> for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
>  if (i == 3) next;

> };

> so as a real machine though, that works the way that would have to as
> a machine? a machine that can't be anything really working like gears
> because of how to be in the middle of the loop is to go outside but
> sometimes not is a problem the way something has to move.

> so if that's to look like a real machine, it's not a machine that
> turns around and around mechanically though, because in the middle is
> back to the beginning. but sometimes through and back around. But it
> actually has to move like a real machine though.

> I think I know a way there is to describe a machine that works this
> way...

> say on a checkers board you have checker pieces, and say each checker
> piece is paired with another.
> now all checker pieces are pairs.
> the way said, try to make one piece able to move... but you have to
> move the other it's a pair with at the same time.
> the board is full, there's no free spaces to move to.
> so to make a piece move with it's paired piece, find where it can go
> where there's another pair that can move, that pair can move where
> another pair can move, and so on... where the last pair to move goes
> where the first pair left.
> each time you move a pair, they are not the same pair anymore once
> they've moved, each of the pair is now a pair with the piece that
> left
> where they went to make a new pair of them. this is key in figuring
> out the only way it can work so a piece can move at all.

> so knowing no first move you can make because there isn't any
> specific
> move to know, find the pair to be able to move the way where they
> move
> to another pair where each of the pair is now another pair with the
> one they move to, they move to a pair that's together. now first pair
> to move to another pair, is now not the same pair, but each a pair
> with each of the other pair.

> so move and do that, but at the same time when you get a piece of the
> first pair where it goes and the other pair moved, as a new pair now
> it can't stay there because it has to move again because of how at
> the
> same time something is making the other of the pair move. right?
> maybe
> that part is hard to see. It's the only way to figure it can move in
> any way at all.

> so it's like the last move has to be known before the first move can
> be made, because the first move that can be made is where something
> can move next, but what can move next is what carries on to the last
> move that can move where the first pair moved from. it's a recursive
> type of problem to figure out how to move a pair.

> where a pair can move is where it goes to another pair that at the
> same time is moving away making an occupancy, but when you get there
> and you're a new pair with the piece that moves from where you get
> to,
> it's not to think staying can work because now something needs the
> pair you are now to move.

> it's like so where you can never have it so you stop moving until all
> the move is complete. but nowhere in the middle, or at first or last,
> can you know how to make it work to move because the beginning is
> like
> knowing the end of how to move.

> what's interesting though is how pairs that figure themselves to be
> able to move are not all the pairs but some, but that some other
> pairs
> that figure out a way to move are the same pairs as others that
> figure
> out another way.

> and each time a pair makes a move it's all the way to where the place
> they leave has something come, but that had to be before you can move
> in the first place in idea of the problem it is because that's where
> something can move to finally get around to the last move where you
> leave, but leave where you can because you find what comes where you
> leave at first. each time a pair is moved depending on how moving
> pairs are said together is to reorganize how pairs are together, but
> to keep moving the same pairs is to find the same place they were in
> to begin with but alot of other ways too depending on which of the
> pairs together you try to move, if you say the pairs together are the
> pairs that given one pair are the ones that move at the same time
> too.

> isn't it fair to call how they behave any machine?

> there's a few things you can say like given how they're arranged pick
> a few pairs for how they're organized and see how every way you can
> move them makes a few more pairs reorganized for how you move them?
> it's like pairs can setup in any way where for any way they are
> organized is for any way other pairs are organized.

> it's like saying for every combination of a number, there's another
> combination but not linear association.

> so don't they describe any machine there can be ? like don't they
> describe working with a behavior that can be how any possible machine
> works?

> you can see how it looks like a machine when you take a pair and
> figure how it can be moved, like say one moves, but it goes where
> something else moves, and it moves where something else moves, but
> then something moves to where the first one left. so say just one of
> these that work around to move, but then say all that do. say all
> together like the ones that move around in a way but the others that
> move around in a way, you can see importantly enough for how it's a
> machine that they use the same pairs starting from somewhere else to
> move as how you can move somewhere else.

> isn't that any machine there can be? I mean like a functional machine
> to work like gears but not like gears where you have to be in the
> middle of it working to be on the outside then the otherside again.
> Like if you thought of code working as a real machine doing what a
> 'for loop' does, it has to be a machine that is in the middle of the
> 'for loop' to be to the beginning again, but then again through it
> but
> not to the beginning but through the end.
> But as a machine that actually moves the way this would have to?

> Don't moving pairs represent any machine there can be?

> See how moving pairs rearrange each time? but the way others do will
> rearrange another way if they use the same pairs? but see how to
> rearrange those ones and the other ones again make difference of how?

> See moving pairs that move together as part of the machine where for a
> condition one way is for a condition another way like they say
> together a condition that matters together. Like if part of the
> machine is one way then another part of the machine is another way,
> together matters like to change one part is to change the other part.
> But then pairs that move together another way are another part like
> they use the same pairs, because it's a part of the machine together
> with another part. But see how they're eachother? like when one part
> together moves, other part together has to move another way now?

> See them though the way you put together pairs that move with others
> that can move the way they can move, like one moves the other to move
> the other. but then others that do that do that to another that works
> it's own way. see it though the way it's a machine that can work like
> a machine can for what it is to work that way, because it's to see
> what a loop has to be for example.

> I find something special about how if you move a pair and look at it
> as a machine again, there's something to notice.

see how you can move a part of the machine it is, and have the rest of
the machine move? that's not to say making a machine move step by step
in idea of how it is functional at working, but how a part of the
machine is in condition for the next part to be in condition. like,
it's to say the whole machine in condition where a part of the machine
is changed in condition, and the rest of the machine is in condition
for where that part of the machine is at? it's not to say a machine
that moves step by step though, it's to say a machine that has a part
moved into another condition, and then the whole machine put into one
condition together like the next part is one way for the next part to
be one way and so on.

doesn't a machine have to be that way? where one part moves and then
the other part moves?
but see a machine this way.... a part together with a part.. where one
part of the machine is one way for the next part to be one way... so
see a whole machine that way though... it's not like step by step a
machine that moves, it's like part for part matches together. so a
part of the machine is one way, but has many ways to be.. like a pair
that can move has many ways to move but goes back to the same way it
was.. like choose one of them but any of them that move together as
what moves, then it moved so they're together still to move again
another way but back to where it was. but this part is another part if
you start somewhere else. so move the part that a pair that can move
is and find ones to move that are part of another part that moves too,
but move this part and the other part will move differently, or is
moved, like the part to it and so on.

like.. a machine is where one part is to move any way, then it's for
the next part to be any way for that part, but it's to be a part one
way for the next part to be one way. but only one way can the next
part be, so on as the next parts.

because if a machine is connected together no matter what, even one
that works like a machine that can be any real machine that works..
then it's connected together in sense of one piece moves another
piece, and so on right? like if i move part of the machine, the move
the next part, this makes sense right?
but not to see the machine move step by step right? because look...
look at it be a real machine though. where it's one machine connected
together as one machine though... because it's one machine connected
together... because if part of the machine is one way, the other part
is another way. like to think a whole machine any way is to think one
side of the machine is always for the other side of the machine, you
can't be halfway about one side and not all the way about the other
side like if the machine is build solid where one side is the way for
the other side to be the way it is.

so it's one machine together like where it matters one side of the
machine to be like the other side of the machine... so make a machine
work step by step and see what it is that doesn't make sense, it's
seeing the other side of the machine not be there yet with how it's
connected together. it's like to do the whole machine at once to move
it a little because one move makes another and so on. so see one move
make another in a machine... but instead of seeing it as how the
machine works, see it as how one part of the machine moves for the
next part of the machine. that's not like how a machine works to run,
it's how a machine works being connected together.

so like... see how the machine works ?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists