Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:27, 14 October 2007

Clanking machine merge

Hi, I have proposed merging these two articles because there is very little content in the self-replicating machine article, and a lot of good content in the clanking replicator article, but I feel very few people would actually know what a clanking replicator was if you asked them, so I propose that the clanking replicator article be re-titled "Self-replicating machine" and the content of the two articles merged. Anyone with any objections please don't hesitate to add them here. User: Jaganath 18:28 31 May 2006

Well, okay, I'll object. It seems to me that the term and concept of a "clanking replicator" has been around in the literature for a long time, whereas, unless I've missed something "self-replicating machine" really hasn't. Clanking replicator is a specific term that differentiates the scale at which the process of self-replication occurs, that is, Clanking Replicators are made of macroscale discrete parts. There is a whole other self-replication discussion going on that is functionally the same but proposed to take place at nanoscale. Anyhow, what it appears to me that you've done is blur the boundaries of what we are discussing without taking in any more real material, viz, nanoscale technology to justify the blurring. Plaasjaapie 12:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

For me, the difference is one of presentation. Clanking replicator does have an implication of scale, so it could be considered equal to robotic self-replication. This, indeed, is the image shown at article page top. Yet, it would also be reasonable to view the clanking replicator as a metaphor. Self-replication is not. In my view, we should maintain a hierarchy of articles, and hotlinks between, so as to separate abstract from real, metaphor from description, etc. This is indeed the reason for separating von Neumann self-replication Von Neumann Universal Constructor from Universal Constructor. One article refers to the general notion, the other to a specific case. This is important, for as von Neumann defined the general case, he also developed a specific example. Well, actually two examples. The kinematic model (a robotic notion) is a good specific example of the clanking replicator concept. The tesselation model (cellular automata) is the abstract concept. Universal construction, on the other hand, is a global concept. These distinctions should be retained within the structure of article interconnection, and not within article wording. There is much value to the conveyance of information through its organisational structure, an additional measure of content beyond that one would obtain from an article. Further, this allows for pairing of fluff (do they call that cruft here?) in article content. Improved encyclopedic content and efficient presentation is a goal not to be corrupted by inappropriate article merger. William R. Buckley 18:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge? Constructors, replicators, machines, oh my

I'm trying to sort out the teminology used in various articles here. I've thrown some merge tags on them, although "merge" isn't /quite/ the concept I think is needed (but that's as close as I can think of). I think what is needed is to make sure that all editors are aware of alternative terminology and other articles, and then to re-arrange articles and content and article names to make things clearer. So far, I've encountered the following:

• Self-replicating
• Autopoiesis
• Self-replicating machine
• von Neumann machine
• von Neumann probe
• Universal Constructor
• clanking replicator
• Astrochicken
• Santa Claus machine
• Nanorobotics/Nanorobot/Nanobot
• Nanoprobe
  • Nanoprobe (device)
  • Nanoprobe (Star Trek)
• Molecular nanotechnology
• assembler/Molecular assembler/Assembler (nanotechnology)
• Molecular engineering/Molecular manufacturing
• Artificial life
• Grey goo
• Ribosome

All of the above appear to be related in some way. The terms aren't always well defined. Some of the terms are used interchangably in some places but not in others. One can, generally speaking, make their way from any of the above to any other, but it may take several hops when it should be one. Some of these are dab pages. Some are redirects. Some articles link to redirects. At least one article links to a redirect to itself. I think many of these articles probabbly should exist on their own, but clean-up and more structure is perhaps needed. I'm thinking those "Series boxes" one sees in other Wiki articles might be a good choice. Thoughts? --DragonHawk 01:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• The Ribosome is also a self-replicating machine, in that given the information necessary, it can construct its own components. Not all self-replicators are man-made. Here are mentioned both specific examples and the most general of theory, as well as applications areas and ethical concerns. Another to consider is epigenesis - machine developmental processes. The best umbrella for these concepts is constructor theory. William R. Buckley 06:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Not so sure this is a good idea. A self-replicating machine isn't necessarily a universal constructor. Indeed, it only needs to be able to construct one very specific thing in order to qualify as a self-replicating machine. Bryan 06:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that I've read the Universal Constructor article as well, I'm now quite sure it's not a good idea to merge them. "Universal Constructor" is about one very specific self-replicating pattern that von Neumann envisioned, and it isn't even a physical thing. Bryan 06:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Several comments. 1. It is not true that the universal constructor is a specific example of von Neumann. Indeed, the notion of universal construction is quite general. 2. No, these two articles, self-replicating machine and universal constructor, should not be merged. Though they are based on the same foundation, universal construction, one is a general topic (the notion of universal construction), the other specific (how a constructor, universal or not, can be organised to effect its replication, also called self-replication). 3. It seems that the structure of several articles, and their relationships to each other, need to be changed, to better represent the relationships between these articles. The article on John von Neumann is part of this need. I expect that a number of individuals are thinking carefully about reorganisation - comments on this point exists in talk pages of various relevant articles. 4. Frankly, we should also have an article about constructor theory, and derive universal constructor and self-replicating machine therefrom. William R. Buckley 16:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Complexity in Self-replicating Machines

"most living organisms are still many times more complex than even the most advanced man-made device"

What, exactly, does this mean? I don't like statistics like this; when you're talking about the majority (most) of living organisms you're referring to bacteria and there are plenty of man made machines more complicated than bacteria in many regards. You're also dealing with the definition of the word complexity, namely; complexity in what sense? The building blocks in a computer are far more complicated (due to relative scarcity of constituent materials and the necessary processing) than the DNA building blocks of bacteria (composed of 4 rather common nucleotides).

Where does anyone say that there is a need for complexity for self-reproduction? See this article:

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/May05/selfrep.ws.html

And also,

"If proof were needed that self-replicating machines are possible the simple fact that all living organisms are self replicating by definition should go some way towards providing that proof"

Who ever said that self-replicating machines were not possible?

Ironcorona 00:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Prior to von Neumann, no one knew the details of how to build a self-replicating machine. So, as you used the word "ever," consider that any researcher questioning the likelihood of building such a machine, say in the 1700s, would be a candidate in answer of your last question. William R. Buckley 04:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I agree. In that light, perhaps this paragraph should be modified to read something like

"some critics such as X, Y and Z have voiced opposition to the posibility of creating self-replicating machines, although the simple fact that all living organisms are self replicating, by definition, should go some way towards providing that proof."

I'm not sure that we should assume that, because there were people that might have thought that self-replicating machines were not possible, had they been consulted, that, in fact, anyone did.

There's also the point that perhaps not all living organisms are self replicating. According to the Virus article some people think that viruses are alive . As far as I can tell, viruses cannot self-replicate. If anyone had some clarification on that point it would be quite helpful.

of course I realise that I'm in danger of being overly pedantic :)

Ironcorona 00:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

On the point of meaning for the term *self-replicator* I agree that independent (no need to invent a new word: independency) operation is important. However, von Neumann defined the term (though others have moved it from self-reproduction to self-replication, owing to some differences in the two behaviors), and he includes within that definition the kind of articulation exhibited by the robots of Lipson. William R. Buckley 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Von Neumann may have included it but you have only spoken of it here in general, sparse of terms. Where is the specific reference? Quotations please not some book or lecture that he or one of his partisan associates wrote up, especially those

This I will do, when and if I am called to testify in court regarding your claims. Otherwise, you do your homework, and I will do mine. William R. Buckley 04:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are presumptuous of the reasoning of other people. William R. Buckley 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The mechanism which we use is called reversion. We simply revert the article, if we are not satisfied with a recent edit. William R. Buckley 04:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That is easy enough for you to do. Create an article called *Independent operability" and put your text there. Add a link in the *Self-replicating machine* article to point to *Independent operability" article, and vice-versa. William R. Buckley 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I corrected your indentation, just this once; not intended to be vandalism. I do hope the demonstration is of value to you. We use successive indentations to keep the context of discussions clear. William R. Buckley 04:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If you were to compose your article without specific reference to you, then the article would be left at peace. Misplaced Pages has a very strong statement against the addition of text which demonstrates vanity, to even the slightest degree. Frankly, your article reads like advertising. So, I am not surprised that the editor removed it with a single word comment. My own approach is not to remove text that seems vain. This is for two reasons. First, if the author is truly intent upon improving Misplaced Pages, then they will with time adjust article content such that it approaches neutrality; i.e. the sections which appear as vanity. The second reason is that, yes, other more zealous editors will do this work. William R. Buckley 04:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Your concern for quick removal of any new submission is understandable but, it is your fault. Well, not so much a fault, as caused by your wording. Tone down the references to yourself (it really does sound like you are patting your own back), and try a new submission. Heck, I might even be willing to assist you in getting the vain out (however much or little there is), so that your article can stay in (Misplaced Pages). William R. Buckley 04:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I do give you credit for determination, and for the subtle adjustments you've made in tone, and the spelling of names. Just to remind you, *Von* only when the first word of a sentence; in all other cases, the word is spelled with lower case letters: *von*. Also, his name is Hod Lipson, and ends with the letter *n*, not the letter *m*. It does seem a great slight to Dr. Lipson, given your greater anger at Frietas and Merkle, and you manage to spell their names correctly. William R. Buckley 04:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Finally, your description of comments to me as being retorts does not place you in good light. While the word does address the notion of reply, it does so with the implication of a *wise-guy* attitude on the part of the giver of the retort. You therefore do yourself harm, predisposing others who read your comments to take you as being less than serious. William R. Buckley 04:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Beware of this one point. If there are not extant other published sources, your article is subject to excision from Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages does not allow the inclusion of material derived from unpublished sources. Maybe that is why your article was removed from Misplaced Pages; you have no externally published sources upon which to base your article. If this is the case, then you need to get a source published externally, like in Scientific American magazine. William R. Buckley 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is von Neumann's kinematic design. It is described in the book Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata. If you do not have a copy of your own, you can instead view the bootleg copy posted on the web at URL http://www.walenz.org/vonNeumann/index.html William R. Buckley 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You are no better expert in this topic than am I, nor are you better than the other editors of this article. Instead, you are condescending. William R. Buckley 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Further, Edward F. Moore described much of your notions in his Scientific American article of the mid-1950s. He called his notions *artificial living plants*. William R. Buckley 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This is flawed reasoning. It is abundantly clear that self-replicators avail themselves of mass and energy flows in the course of their *self* tasks. It is also abundantly clear that such *self* processes occur independent of the mass and energy flows. Indeed, they are parasitic, not supporting, these *self* behaviors. Your argument would make more sense if the mass and energy flows were caused by life, as a means of life obtaining its raw materials. I begin to suspect you hold a belief in *intelligent design*. William R. Buckley 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Do the work yourself. If others don't like what you do, then we turn to arbitration procedures. You do not dictate article content, no matter how plaintive the request. William R. Buckley 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

*remove any existing ...* what? That is, and being properly expressive, what is it that you want removed? You forgot to mention what that thing is, which is to be removed. Just because you know what should have been mentioned does not mean that others are mind-readers. It is your job to communicate that which you want communicated. Your failure in this regard is an example of you being lazy. Clearly, you would rather have other people do your work. William R. Buckley 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not infringing to discuss things. Clearly, this request will be denied. William R. Buckley 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the reason for editing of your writing. That you are so lazy as to not edit your work should not reflect ill upon those who take effort to read your rambling. Your poor writing style is abusive to those who read that writing. Hence, you sabotage your own efforts by your behavior. William R. Buckley 16:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, leave off the leading spaces in Misplaced Pages text, as it is not properly formatted upon display. You note, no one else uses leading spaces. Instead, we use the proper formatting tool *:* for line indentation. Why should others have to reformat your text? Stop being so lazy. William R. Buckley 16:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix liquid plastic replicator

I removed this from the article:

• In 1998, Chris Phoenix suggested a general idea for a macroscale replicator on the sci.nanotech newsgroup, operating in a pool of ultraviolet-cured liquid plastic, selectively solidifying the plastic to form solid parts. Computation could be done by fluidic logic. Power for the process could be supplied by a pressurized source of the liquid.

It appears to be a concept that's only been published in a Usenet post, which IMO isn't a good source for this sort of thing even if Phoenix himself is reasonably well known within the field. Anyone know if he republished the concept anywhere else? Bryan 07:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I just found reference to it in Freitas' "Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines", which is probably about the best third-party backing a usenet post like this can get. So back into the article it goes. Bryan 06:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Quote

If proof were needed that self-replicating machines are possible the simple fact that all living organisms are self replicating by definition should go some way towards providing that proof, although most living organisms are still many times more complex than even the most advanced man-made device.

I feel I've read this before. In Goedel, Escher, Bach perhaps? Anyhoo: Is this a quote? If so, it should be marked as such. (Obviously.) --91.64.240.54 20:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A Google search led me to these quotes:

"Machines today are still a million times simpler than the human brain. Their complexity and subtlety is comparable to that of insects." -- Ray Kurzweil, as quoted in http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0498.html?printable=1

"Drexler's most compelling argument that radical nanotechnology must be possible is that cell biology gives us endless examples of sophisticated nano-scale machines." -- Richard Jones, http://nanotechweb.org/articles/feature/3/8/1/1

Or is there some other original quote that would be better? --68.0.120.35 07:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Great upgrade

Wow! Great additions to the entry Bryan! 206.55.252.246 15:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Been tinkering with it off and on for quite some time, but just recently sat down with Frietas' book "Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines" to do some solid writing based off of the information in there. This is a favorite subject of mine. :) Bryan Derksen 05:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup on self-replicating machine

You just added a cleanup header to self-replicating machine but didn't provide any indication of what you thought needed cleaning up. The article is in very good condition as far as I can tell. Could you specify on the article's talk page please? Bryan Derksen 05:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I can give a very detailed explanation of why I put that tag there, but basically I think there's too many short sections that felt like it cut the narrative of the article, or like the article seems like a bunch of stubs put together. And some parts can be a bit confusing for example, the first line says The concept of self-replicating machines has been advanced and examined by, amongst others, whereas I think it should explain what a self replicating machine is. Well, that's just an example. I don't wish to get involved in editing specific articles, (besides, all I know about this thing is from this article) I hope that helps, good luck.~ Feureau E.S.P. 15:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've pondered this issue off and on for a while now and I can't really consider the current layout to be wrong. There are a few sections with single paragraphs but I'm not sure that they should be expanded much; this is an article about a general concept, specific examples should get details in separate articles. I've added a new first sentence but can't think of anything in particular to do about the section headers. Bryan Derksen 07:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Existance of self-replicating machines

Removed the line: "As of 2007, there are no extant self-replicating machines, although this is a burgeoning research area."

see this article from Cornell News

Ironcorona 14:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is a sticky issue, the existence of self-replicating, self-reproducing, self-repairing, and self-assembling machines. William R. Buckley 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• The work of Hod Lipson is probably best described as self-assembling. Reproduction has been reserved for use within biological systems. Replication is the equivalent in machines. Perhaps repair is a higher function than replication. William R. Buckley 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• In fact, no machine, not even man, is able to build all of the parts from which it is made, and by this I mean to include extraction and forming of raw materials to feed all subsequently necessary processes and purposes. Man does not know how to take raw atoms and simple molecules, and by the multitude of industrial processes turn these into the various components of which he is built, and these into another he. Adrian Bowyer looks to have about the closest example of a machine that can produce all its parts. It cannot produce the raw materials, nor can it assemble the parts. William R. Buckley 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Actually, a man can build another man fairly easily with the assistance of a woman. Even if you require that we start with just pure raw atoms we currently have the technical ability to synthesize all the micronutrients we'd need. That goes a bit beyond the common definition of self-replication, though. Any definition of "self-replicating" that excludes biological organisms is not a particularly useful definition of self-replication IMO. Bryan Derksen 07:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • This is a non sequitur. William R. Buckley 19:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how. You suggested that humans were incapable of "building all the parts from which made", and I pointed out that they are indeed capable of doing this. The only thing industrial processes would be required for are in manufacturing biochemical feedstocks that we can't manufacture within our own bodies, ie vitamins and such, and that's actually a fairly simple thing to do if we really needed to. Bryan Derksen 23:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Because, you are begging the question. The point is, can you build the thing external to your own body? Can you construct a living system external to all the others known? Can you cobble together all the necessary components, sit back, and observe the act, without participation? William R. Buckley 23:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This subthread is veering off in weird directions, so let's just go back to the core issue. Are you seriously arguing that humans should not be considered self-replicating? If so, can you point to any remotely credible source that supports this view? All those requirements you specify above seem strange and ad-hoc. Why can't a self-replicator build copies internally instead of externally? Bryan Derksen 07:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing self-replication with self-reproduction. This language is contemporary in usage, and you can find plenty of examples in research literature. How are these processes different? A big difference is the lack of developmental processes in self-replication. Humans do not self-replicate. Rather, they self-reproduce. William R. Buckley 20:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• My own work in cellular automata is not particularly different from that of Rendell, Langton, Sayama, to name but a few. In these cases, we say we have self-replicating machines, even if abstract, but they do not make their parts. William R. Buckley 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• • This is exactly von Neumann's concept, for both the kinematic and tessellation models. It was Edward F. Moore who extended von Neumann's ideas to include mechanisms for gathering raw materials from the environment. Implicit within von Neumann's model is the notion that physical automata, by joint and several action, could replicate the parts of which they are made. Von Neumann's notion of robotics includes manipulation of the environment sufficient for the extraction and manipulation of raw materials, and the incorporation of same within new robots. It seems obvious enough that robots are capable of actuating the controls of mills, lathes, and other process equipment, rather in the fashion that would be employed by a human being. The construction of component parts employed in the construction of robots was clearly implied by the kinematic model of von Neumann. Being sufficiently bold in the matter of self-replication, von Neumann refrained from a venture into robotic self-repair. William R. Buckley 21:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• The endpoint of this technology is the assembler of Drexler (a centralised solution), and the ribosome(a distributed solution), it would seem. Certainly a macroscopic notion is the robot which commands traditional manufacturing processes, having suitable manipulators and sensors, computing systems, and sufficient information stores, which can then direct the production of all its parts, and the assembly of its replicants. The only difference is the scale at which atoms are manipulated. William R. Buckley 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• • In hindsight, include the molecular assembler as a distributed solution. William R. Buckley 21:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• It may be too soon to say that we have now a self-replicating machine but, also soon will such a statement be true. William R. Buckley 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Bias Complaint

No point in leaving the discussion with Charles Michael Collins, since he removed all of his remarks. We leave this message as reference to the event, for historical purposes. William R. Buckley 20:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Good gravy. I'm sorry, I haven't been paying attention to my watchlist much lately and I missed this whole exchange. For the benefit of other editors and historical reference, here's the revision immediately before Collins deleted his comments. I would have stepped in and helped out had I seen this. Bryan Derksen 23:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That's alright Bryan. At least you, and others, now know of the controversy, and its apparent solution. Thanks for noticing. William R. Buckley 01:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Independent Operability

The subject of this section is an invented term, having no relation to the description given in the first paragraph of the article. In fact, the act described by example of a rabbit is properly known as *self-reproduction* and has been known as such long before the birth of Charles Michael Collins. Allowing Mr. Collins to abuse the English language in this fashion is unconscionable. I, for one, will not participate in such abuse, as by failing to scrub the article clean of such abuse. William R. Buckley 01:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I note there used to be an article about it, but it was deleted: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Independent operability. From this it also looks like Collins was previously editing under User:Fraberj, and his talk page is filled with similar ramblings about independant operability. At this point I'm thinking it's best to just remove references to the concept from this article completely until some sort of independent verification comes along. Bryan Derksen 02:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact, from other edits I'm now digging up such as (adding an extremely lengthy rant to a user talk archive from over a year ago) and a now-deleted rant posted on Talk:Independent operability I think Mr. Collins is coming across as a rather contentious editor. Collins, please tone down your rhetoric and come up with some references or we may have to start looking at things like article protection to get the situation under control. Bryan Derksen 02:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I did mention this as a possibility in the discussion now excised from the talk page. Frankly, I do not want to see this happen. Much as I like to challenge Mr. Collins with himself, I am mindful of the great potential for valuable input. For instance, I do agree that an old notion is redundantly termed: self-reproduction. Von Neumann called his automata self-reproducing. Noting such language peculiarities does not, to my mind, reasonable empower the invention of terms. William R. Buckley 05:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The degree of the inability to determine differences is a degree of insanity. Similarly, the degree in the inability to determine similarities, similarly is a degree of insanity. I was making an analogy for the benefit of children who need a similar analogy to grasp the term and I made that clear. I clearly was weighing similarities. Children use this reference as well as adults. Check the context and syntax. Further, even though it is customary to use "reproduce" for biological descriptions (and "self-reproduction" may be a redundancy) "replicate" means, more generally to make a copy (in my Webster's unabridged dictionary). Therefore "self-reproduce" is simply a more specific way of saying "self-replicate", in this art. Do not many practiced in this art use the phrase "man made life forms"? So, machines that are personified to an extent to be held as "life forms" may be called "self-reproducers", and vice versa. You indicated that von Neumann had some discussion on that, I would like to know where you saw that. 11:08 , 13 October 2007 (EST)

Actually, I have no quarrel with any of that (though I think we don't really need to bring the article down all the way to child level - that's what the "simple" Misplaced Pages is for). The thing I think we need better references for are the F-units section and the term "independent operability", which previous AfD discussion seems to indicate is a neologism inappropriate for inclusion in Misplaced Pages as a general term. Bryan Derksen 03:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The use of a metaphor is fine. Presentation which is condescending is not fine. To be treasured are details of a working machine, a specific example that I may watch engage in the task, and yield two working copies, these then also, together, engaged in the act of self-replication. To be shunned is such a description which is not available in external sources. I would love to have included in this article operational details of Mr. Collins machine. Alas, that will apparently not happen until the machine is described in published sales literature. I reiterate my request for an in-person demonstration of your machine, Mr. Collins. Heck, if there are no published sources upon which to base content for this article, show me the device, demonstrate self-replication of the device, and I will be happy to write that source for you. William R. Buckley 05:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As to von Neumann's discussion, see The General and Logical Theory of Automata, as published in the book Cerebral Mechanisms in Behavior - The Hixon Symposium, edited by Lloyd L. Jeffress. I forget the date, and my copy is now in storage. If you don't have a copy of his paper, send me email to the previously disclosed address, and I will send you a PDF of the paper. To the best of my understanding, von Neumann's work in this area is first presented in this paper. I'll ask around, and see if this is indeed the case. William R. Buckley 05:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, there is a tendency for Misplaced Pages to rely upon the retention of records by others. This means that sources once cited, may thereafter be no longer retrievable. Misplaced Pages should endeavor to retain *house copies* of all cited sources. William R. Buckley 05:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on that. The Misplaced Pages site has been crashing on my attempts and I'm finding things are different than before here now. It's harder to upload things. Importantly, you guys know more of this subject than the last group at Misplaced Pages who knew nothing and chose to go nuts. I need to get some sleep, be back later. Charles Michael Collins October 14 2007 12:59 am

1. http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=6f0nui%248ih%241%40news.nanospace.com