HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hansm@cs.kun.nl (Hans Mulder)
Subject: Re: Alephs (Was Re: Number of numbers)
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 13:07:14 GMT

In <1992Dec31.015358.147@front.se> samuel@front.se writes:

>Questions
>=========

> 1. Is it possible to constuct set theories where 
>     A. Aleph-0 < Aleph-1 < Aleph-2 < Aleph-3 < ... < Aleph-oo < C    ?

I'm not sure what you mean by oo.  If you mean omega, then the answer is YES.

>     B. Aleph-0 < Aleph-1 < Aleph-2 < Aleph-3 < ... < Aleph-oo = C    ?

There exist ordinal numbers N such that C cannot be equal to Aleph-N.
I can't remember offhand whether omega is one of them.

>     C. Aleph-0 < Aleph-1 < Aleph-2 < Aleph-3 < ... < Aleph-K  = C    ?

What do you mean by K?

> 2. If the answer to 1A is YES then is it possible to construct a set theory
>    where
>        Aleph-0 < Aleph-1 < Aleph-2 < ...
>        Aleph-(Aleph-0) < Aleph-(Aleph-1) < Aleph-(Aleph-2) < ...
>        Aleph-(Aleph-(Aleph-0)) < Aleph-(Aleph-(Aleph-1)) < ...
>        Aleph-(Aleph-(Aleph-(Aleph-0))) < ...
>        etc... < C
>    or anything similar ?
>    Maybe this is a totally irrelevant question (Can 'cardinalities' be used
>    as indeces ?), but my mind is completely 'Alephed' at this stage of the 
>    discussion ! :-)

No, you can't use cardinal numbers as indices; you should use ordinal numbers.
If we replace all Alephs in index positions by omegas, the answer is YES.

--
Hope this helps,

Hans Mulder				hansm@cs.kun.nl
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Number of instructions in microprocessors
From: pgut1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 10:12:52 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept. University of Auckland

In <1993Jan5.005419.16209@ryn.mro4.dec.com> pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com (Peter Mayne) writes:

>I'd like to know how many instructions some popular microprocessors have,
>and this group would undoubtedly jump at the chance to pull out this kind
>of trivia. :-) (Undoubtedly we'll also learn some other stuff along the way.)

>I'll start:

>ARM (RISC):		<30
>6502 (RISC?):		55
>8086 (non-RISC):	90+
>Alpha (RISC):		150 (approx)
>VAX (non-RISC):		>400

I'm not sure you can really count instructions like that - sure the ARM may
only have about 30 instructions, but each instruction does the job of several,
say, 6502 instructions.  The first time I saw ARM assembly language I
couldn't believe that something with instructions that complex could be
called "RISC".  Similary processors like the 80x86 and 68K series have 
thousands of instructions if you count wierd addressing modes and the like.

Peter.
--
 pgut1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz||p_gutmann@cs.aukuni.ac.nz||gutmann_p@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
peterg@kcbbs.gen.nz||peter@nacjack.gen.nz||peter@phlarnschlorpht.nacjack.gen.nz
              (In order of preference - one of 'ems bound to work)
           -- Whoever dies with the most email addresses ... wins --

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: "Stringy Floppy"
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:44:41 GMT

In article <1k55sH#49xgtH63MydQ6WKGGX8qpQYD=esr@snark.thyrsus.com>,
esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:

|>In <1993Jan9.201706.27670@EE.Stanford.EDU> Anthony E. Siegman wrote:
|>>    Among the collection of bizarre early computer artifacts is the
|>> "Stringy Floppy" (that was its product name) that was once marketed in
|>> the Northern California area.  
|>
|>Yup, I remember these.   There was a period around 1979 when they looked
|>like they might be serious competition to floppy disks, then an *extremely*
|>crude and limited technology (capacities around 80K per disk).

I bought one!

Or rather I bought the Sinclair version, the "microdrive". Basicaly a didly
little tape cassette drive. Mind you the O/S support for them was quite
fearsome.

If Sinclair had brought out the QL working with an upgrade kit to a real
keyboard and a floppy disk then ATARI and Commodore would have gone under. QL
had an O/S more advanced that MSDOS or TOS and the reject one ended up in the
Amiga!

Instead he cheesed it, the keyboard needed an extra $20, and the damn thing
cried out for a real disk. Was a pretty mean machine though, ate the PC of the
time for lunch. If Sinclair had not brought out his motorized shoe then he would
still be in business.

I still have my Spectrum ZX81 and QL, anyone out there with a ZX-80?

--

Phill Hallam-Baker
From: d88leini@odalix.ida.liu.se (Leif Nixon)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: "Stringy Floppy"
Date: 10 Jan 93 21:02:55 GMT
Organization: CIS Dept, Univ of Linkoping, Sweden

siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:

>   The Stringy Floppy was a little box that connected to a TRS-80
>Model I Level II (although the bus extender cables for connecting
>various peripherals to the TRS-80 were almost impossible to find) and
>contained a small tape recorder which accepted the small endless loop
>tape cassettes used in mini-dictaphones (I guess I'm not really sure
>it was an endless loop; maybe you had to rewind).
[...]
>   I had one; does anyone else recall this?

The Sinclair Spectrum had a similar device. This Stringy
Floppy-relative utilised an endless tape loop contained in a small
cartridge without spools - worm's nest fashion! Its' speed and
capacity weren't exactly exhilarating, but the drive was cheap, and
you could daisy-chain up to seven drives to increase storage space.

Sinclair did everything in a slightly different way from everybody
else...

/Leif Nixon

nixon@lysator.liu.se
From: ercm20@festival.ed.ac.uk (Sam Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: What happened to "smart buildings"? and three tangents
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:05:23 GMT
Distribution: alt

Cannam@sc.ZIB-Berlin.de (Chris Cannam) writes:
> 
> In article <1iu8nkINN9l5@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM> smckinty@sunicnc.France.Sun.COM (Steve McKinty - Sun ICNC) writes:
> 
>    In article <CANNAM.93Jan12100339@borodin.sc.ZIB-Berlin.de>, Cannam@sc.ZIB-Berlin.de (Chris Cannam) writes:
> 
>    > Perhaps more interesting are the arguments they get with people who
>    > are thus nabbed, and then claim in court that they don't watch BBC --
>    > their TVs are only capable of receiving independent TV, or they only
>    > use them with a video or computer, or whatever.
> 
>    Its not a valid argument. You require the license to have the TV, not
>    to use it. Whether the law is right is a different issue, but 'I only
>    watch coronation street' isn't a defence.

Strictly I believe you require a licence to operate at TV, not just to
own it and not to receive TV broadcasts.  (Despite what I think it says
on the licence - I don't have one so I can't look it up! - a guy was
successfully prosecuted some years back for owning a TV and using it
exclusively as a computer monitor).  There was also the case of a family
who used to lock their TV away for 3 months of every 15 who confused the
heck out of the licensing people's computer which wasn't set up to
handle the licence lapsing and then being renewed after a short
interval.  No, I don't know the exact form of the confusion. 

> There was a case a few years ago in which some guy in Wales
> demonstrated to the satisfaction of all concerned that he couldn't
> actually receive BBC in his area, and hence won his case against
> paying the fee.  `I only watch Coronation Street' isn't a defence, but
> `I can't watch East Enders even if I want to' can be.

That's one I hadn't heard about.  Some 12 or 15 years ago there was a
celebrated situation in, I think, Broughton in the Scottish Borders,
where the whole village was unable to receive BBC, only ITV.  The
villagers were understandably upset but were discouraged to find that
the licence fee was for receiving TV broadcasts, not BBC broadcasts.  I
believe the BBC offered to build them a repeater for a little matter of
about L1000 per household and that they refused.  I don't know the
current state.

What's this doing in a.f.c??

Sam
From: dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to ... SC/MP
Date: 9 Jan 93 00:07:55 GMT
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam

In article <1993Jan7.124850.6032@pollux.lu.se> magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson) writes:
 > In article <kurz.1.47.0@ipa.fhg.de> kurz.1@ipa.fhg.de (Hermann Kurz) writes:
 > >In article <7123@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> mark-r@spec0.ee.man.ac.uk 
 > >(Mark Robinson (JO PhD)) writes:
 > >>1. What was the proper numeric title of the SC/MP (Single
 > >>Chip / Microprocessor - often called SCaMP, SCaMPy, SCruMPy, etc).
 > >>Was it the 1802?
 > >
 > >No, if memory serves me well it was the INS 8060
 > 
 > Yes, the INS 8060 was the SC/MP II. There was also a SC/MP I which was
 > made in PMOS technology, if I'm not misinformed. I don't know anything
 > about that beast, though.
 > 
According to Osbornes 4 & 8-bit Microprocessor Handbook the SC/MP I was
ISP-8A/500 in PMOS while the SC/MP was ISP-8A/600.  They were functionally
equivalent (except for some signal level conversions and power supply
differences).  The text for this chapter was written somewhere aboput 1975
I think.
 > 
...
 > It is rather obvious from the 8060's architecture and instruction set
 > that it was designed as a microcontroller, not as the CPU of a home
 > computer (no stack, for example).

Osborne disagrees a bit here.  The first sentence of the chapter reads:
"SC/MP is a low-cost microprocessor that has been designed to operate
easily in multi-microprocessor configurations."  But indeed, not for a
home computer (multi-processor home computers?).
-- 
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj  amsterdam, nederland
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn  amsterdam, nederland; e-mail: dik@cwi.nl
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Date: Mon,  4 Jan 1993 09:37:07 -0500 
From: Blake_Lewis@transarc.com
Subject: Re: Number of numbers (Was Re: PI)


schoenfr@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (Erik Schoenfelder) writes:

> The formula i found (and use) is
> 
>         pi = 16 * atan (1/5) - 4 * atan (1/239)

A faster one is

	pi = 24 * atan(1/8) + 8 * atan(1/57) + 4 * atan(1/239)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: andyh@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Andy Holyer)
Subject: Re: Kluges!! (was Re: VCS processor (was Re: Game machine processors))
Organization: University of Sussex
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:12:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.193326.11958@samba.oit.unc.edu> Tony.Duell@launchpad.unc.edu (Tony Duell) writes:
....
> I'm sorry to be so against the Apple, but I have one, a pet, a TRS-80
>model 1, and an Exidy Sorceror, and the apple is by far the worst designed
>of any of them.

I remember the Exidy Sorcerer. We had one as the first computer at my school.
The keyboard was *wierd* - as an "anti-bounce" move, the keys registered
when you *released* them, not when you pressed them. Made the repeat key
behaviour a bit odd....

Our Sorcerer had a hyperactive power supply which would overheat and cut
out the high tension supply after about 20 minutes, so the screen became
garbled. The cure was to hit the machine sharply on the beck of the case.
We made up a label with a big X on it saying "Hit here when machine crashes".

I remember there was no soft reset, either - not intentionally, it's just
Exidy used the Z80 refresh system to refresh the RAM, and the reset key
was wired straight to the CPU's reset pin. A reset took about  100ms -
long enough for the dynamic RAM to expire.....

I can still remember the smell of that machine... Takes you back (he says,
staring wistfully into the screen of his SPARCstation... :-)

-Andy
-- 
&ndy Holyer, School of Cognitive and     |"In the beginning, there was
Computing Studies, University of Sussex, |  nothing, which exploded."
JANET: andyh@cogs.sussex.ac.uk           |   - Terry Pratchett
From: kiki@bass.bu.edu (Keith Baccki)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: CLI/GUI wars (was Re: Apple IIGS being discontinued...)
Date: 11 Jan 93 00:50:10 GMT
Reply-To: kiki@bass.bu.edu (Keith Baccki)
Followup-To: alt.folklore.computers
Organization: Boston University

In article <19132@mindlink.bc.ca> Jeremy_Reimer@mindlink.bc.ca (Jeremy Reimer) writes:
>
>GEMulator, an Atari ST emulator for the PC is now available for $299.  On a
>20Mhz 486SX it was benchmarked as outperforming a stock Mega ST in every test
>except display speed (Source: The Computer Paper, December 1992)
>

	Or you could just find a Mega ST for $100 more...

>We may soon see the day when anything will run on anything!  (But I doubt
>this will settle any of the age-old flame wars, though :)


	Yup, I hear Detroit built a car that get's 120 miles/gallon.
The only time we'll see those idealistic "open system" machines is 
when more mega-marketers like IBM and Apple have to form alliances
to avoid getting buried...

				
			keith

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols)
Subject: Re: Number of instructions in microprocessors
Organization: D and D Data, Vienna VA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:58:26 GMT

In article <30004@castle.ed.ac.uk> gk@castle.ed.ac.uk (G Kerr) writes:
>In article <C0JJC1.LGu@news.cecer.army.mil> rnorth@max.cecer.army.mil writes:
>>pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com (Peter Mayne) writes:
>>Just an aside on the topic of RISC, when I took a class in advanced 
>>computer archetecture (sp?) the professor said that RISC was 
>>a useless term.  For the purpose of the class, he defined RISC as 
>>any microprocessor designed since 1985.  Appearently, this opinion has
                     ^^^^^^^^
>>appeared in journals as well. 

	[ ... ]

>Correct me if Im wrong,but the 80386 is post 1985 innit?
>
>If thats RISC, Im a pineapple


	The term above was "designed".  The basic architecture is still that
of the 8080, expanded many times, but I believe, still capable of running
code assembled from 8080 mnemonics.  The 8086 crippled itself with the
segmentation to maintain compatability with it's parents.  All subsequent
versions have not been new designs, but simply growth paths of more kluges
hung on the basic architecture.

	Motorola made a clean break and designed the 68000 as a different
architecture from the ground up, while offering those who needed an 8-bit
path up to more CPU power but assembly source-code-compatibility the 6809.
(No, I'm not claiming any part of the 68k series as RISC either, the design
phase was well before the cutoff date above. :-)

-- 
 Email:   <dnichols@d-and-d.com>  |  ...!uunet!ceilidh!dnichols 
		 <dnichols@ceilidh.beartrack.com>
 Donald Nichols (DoN.)  |   Voice (Days): (703) 704-2280 (Eves): (703) 938-4564
	--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: slb22@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Seth "the Lesser")
Subject: Re: Game machine processors (was Re: Is 4004 the first microprocessor ?)
Organization: Generic American College Kids (G.A.C.K.)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 09:55:24 GMT
Reply-To: slb22@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Seth "the Lesser")
X-Posted-From: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

cpc@shell.portal.com (Chris Cebelenski) writes:
>
>  As a semi related thread, does anyone know what processors were used
>  in home video game systems? (Atari VCS, Magnavox Odysessy, Intelevision,
>  etc.)  Past and present?

I'm wondering about the Interact.  I can't remember the name of the company
that made it, but we had one in grade school (right next to the 4K PET with
the chiclet keyboard) and a friend of mine also had one.  It had cassette I/O,
a full chiclet QWERTY keyboard, and could run a fairly standard BASIC
interpreter.  There was a good Star Trek for it, and numerous other things.

Not exactly a video game machine, but....

Seth L. Blumberg          \ Warning: This posting has been determined to cause
slb22@columbia.edu (play)   \ cancer in laboratory animals.  Please make sure
sethb@ctr.columbia.edu (work) \ that no white mice are allowed to read it.  
    > No one I know shares my opinions, least of all Columbia University. <
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: dsembr01@vulcan.spd.louisville.edu (Darren S. Embry)
Subject: WANTED: list of additions/changes to Jargon 2.9.11
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:45:19 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

Does anyone on The Net, by change, have a list of changes and additions made
to Version 2.9.11 of The Jargon File?  If so, could he/she/it mail it to me?
preshadit :)
-- 
---->8------ Darren Embry --- dsembr01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu -----8<----
 o  o   This is the Internet.  This is a .signature.  This is the 1990's.  You
\____/  know what to do.  This sentence is the implied disclaimer.  You know
        where to direct flames.
From: alderson@elaine46.Stanford.EDU (Rich Alderson)
Subject: Re: Digigal Rainbow 100?
Originator: alderson@leland.Stanford.EDU
Keywords: digital, DEC, Rainbow 100
Reply-To: alderson@elaine46.Stanford.EDU (Rich Alderson)
Organization: Stanford University Academic Information Resources
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 22:25:36 GMT

The Rainbow 100 was a dual-processor machine, containing an 8086 and a Z80.
When running CP/M-86 on the former, the Z80 was used as an IO processor, but
one could also run CP/M 2.2 on the Z80.

There was also a version of MS-DOS for the machine.

Unfortunately for you, I finally tossed my copies of all 3 about a year ago.
:-(

Does anyone remember what the distinction between the 100 and the 100+ was?
-- 
Rich Alderson   'I wish life was not so short,' he thought.  'Languages take
                such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about.'
                                                        --J. R. R. Tolkien,
alderson@leland.stanford.edu                              _The Lost Road_
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,sci.math,comp.compression
From: willmore@iastate.edu (David Willmore)
Subject: Re: Compressing decimal expansion of pi (was Re: PI)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:27:34 GMT

daz@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (David A. Z.) writes:
>	At the danger of interjecting something from reality into this
>strain, I suspect that your "PI" file was an 8-bit ASCII file which was
>loading with only about 4.25 bits (10 characters) per 8-bit word.  (256
>characters possible.)

>	That alone, should have compressed your 1381376 down to 733856.
>Obviously, any CR/LF's or the like would increase that.  Compression 
>beyond the 733856 is kind of interesting though.  

>	Has anyone done a check of digit frequency (how many 1's, how many
>2's, etc...) there is in a long file of PI?  I'd like to hear the results.
>(Don't have a long copy handy)
> 

Oops, I thought that my source file was known, sorry for the confusion.
Here is a list of the information that you wanted:

.'s       :        1
^L's      :      126
^M's      :    13801
spaces    :   112908
0's       :   125505
1's       :   125083
2's       :   125594
3's       :   125793
4's       :   125372
5's       :   125880
6's       :   124796
7's       :   125452
8's       :   125376
9's       :   125689
Total size:  1381376

I sure hope that comes out right.  I'm not going to do tuples until I get
more time at the terminal, sorry.  If someone would send me the location of 
a larger pi file, I would gladly do some tuple analysis.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
willmore@iastate.edu | "Death before dishonor" | "Better dead than greek" | 
David Willmore  | "Ever noticed how much they look like orchids? Lovely!" | 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.bc.ca (Charlie Gibbs)
Subject: Re: CLI/GUI wars (was Re: Apple IIGS being discontinued...)
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:43:21 GMT

In article <NEERI.93Jan5174107@iis.ethz.ch> neeri@iis.ethz.ch
(Matthias Neeracher) writes:

>Here's what Bruce Tognazzini has to say about this:
>
>\begin{quote}
>Proportional scroll bars first appeared in SmallTalk. They have the
advantage
>of letting the user know how big a document is. They may or may not have a
size
>advantage: If the document is small, they appear like giant, white worms,
all
>but filling the scroll bar area. As the document grows, however, they shrink
up
>to the point where they are no longer than the Macintosh scroll bars.
>
>Our research during the Lisa project found that proportional scroll bars
were
>very confusing to new users. [...] We elected to use the tiny scroll boxes
to
>ease the learning process.
>
>The Apple II [gs] team realized that the lIsa and Macintosh teams had simply
>traded ease of learning for ease of use in shrinking the scroll boxes, so
they
>went back to proportional scroll boxes. I don't think you will see that
happen
>on the Macintosh. However, we are aware that such small targets are less
than
>ideal from the point of view of Fitts's law [...] and have been playing with
>some new ideas that don't have us revert to worms, but do enlarge the
effective
>target area of the scroll box.
>
>Stay tuned
>\end{quote}

     This trade-off is consistent with the apparent target audience
for the Mac: people who know little about computers and who are
unlikely to become that familiar with them (i.e. "the rest of us").
Ease of learning is important if you're dealing with people who will
never use a machine enough to really learn it, and who must therefore
relearn a lot of it every time.  I much prefer the worms, though.
They're more intuitive; a large worm can't move very far in the
scroll box, just you can't slide a document very far when nearly
all of it is on the screen.  In fact, I find it disconcerting when
a large movement of a scroll box moves the text on the screen very
little.

     I guess "that's not a bug, it's a feature" (Microsoft's
watchword, which explains the Windoze scroll bars, I guess :-).
Too bad it wasn't configurable for us experienced users who value
ease of use over ease of learning.  Ah well, just another reason
to like my Amiga... :-)

Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.bc.ca
"I'm cursed with hair from HELL!"  -- Night Court
From: fogelinc@nmr1.Cyanamid.COM (Carl Fogelin)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Digigal Rainbow 100?
Date: 7 Jan 1993 18:02:19 GMT
Organization: American Cyanamid Company
Distribution: world
Reply-To: fogelinc@nmr1.Cyanamid.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: nmr1.pt.cyanamid.com

In article 93Jan5145058@pyton.world, tomk@pyton.world (Tom F Karlsson) writes:
>
>As far as i know there are two types of Rainbows, 100A and 100B. Sometimes also
>called 100 and 100+ (don't hit me if I'm wrong :-).

Well, there was a 100A and 100B (and description of the differences you posted
I think are correct), but I believe that the 100+ was a special base configuration
of the 100B.  If I remember right, the 100+ was a 100B that had the hard disk controller and a 5MB hard disk already installed.

Side note: a few years ago I was talking with a DEC engineer who was on the Rainbow's
design team.  According to him, the original design of of the floppy sub-system would
have let the Users format their own disks.  It was a marketing decision to skew the
heads on the RX-50s, thus reducing their tolerance.  This would make customers have
to buy DEC pre-formatted floppies...  

Carl
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Carl Fogelin (fogelinc@cyanamid.com)     "All opinions are strictly mine" 
   "Sushi!   That's what my ex-wife called me.  Cold fish." -- Blade Runner