Mark E:'There is a density issue alright.  And in that you have
destroyed your own claims.  Thanks for playing
again.'

 My only claim was vasilescu karpen kelvin-law discrepency.I did not say that I am powering my tv,hotwater and radio with it.

What you said was that you don't power your home with a Karpen cell or cells due to insufficient energy density.  Let's see if you can figure out how that statement of yours destroys your claim that the Karpen cell violates the Second Law.  The chill in the air isn't from a Karpen cell spontaneously cooling its surroundings.

Mark E:What you said was that you don't power your home with a Karpen cell or cells due to insufficient energy density.'

Precisely.I've only got a few milliwatts-watts of frei energie here at the moment.in absolute violation of kelvin statement.

Shall I dig up the quotes (probably the answer is "yes" here since you're just trying to delay this. )

On one condition

Sorry.  No conditions.  So I guess it's off to find the places where you claim that what you provided was an argument, that it was formal and compelling.

have to promote damage to the excessively objective scientific

Again, I don't speak troll.  So that's just gibberish to me. If you want to try again use standard English usage.

So you can, given sufficient materials create something that sorts strings of bits of whatever size you want.

Yes

Well then you have been proven wrong.   Clearly there this would mean that sorting would have a large delay too large for a device using quantum effects.  Philips device according to him requires quantum effects.  Hence his device can't work.  QED.

I told you.  I don't speak troll.

Let's wait and see

You just admitted that YOU speak troll.  Awesome.

Sorry.  No conditions.  So I guess it's off to find the places where you claim that what you provided was an argument, that it was formal and compelling.

This does absolute zero damage to my statement.

Then you shouldn't have a problem agreeing with it.

Here's the first one.

Sarkeizen:'Are you saying that your argument is compelling'

Yes

Do you agree that you are saying in the above quote that your argument is compelling here. 

Well then you have been proven wrong.   Clearly there this would mean that sorting would have a large delay too large for a device using quantum effects.  Philips device according to him requires quantum effects.  Hence his device can't work.  QED.

english please

Algorithms work in a particular complexity class - they take a certain amount of time (or an average amount of time) to complete given an input.  Quantum algorithms - algorithms that use quantum effects are no exception.  Because of how slow this machine sorts it can't be using a quantum algorithm.  However that would be required if you're using a quantum effect .  Which is what Philip claims his machine is.  Hence his machine - the thing he described - doesn't work.

Wrong.I have a big issue with it if it does no damage to the statement.the statement exists in and for standard science.it must be dealt with accordingly.

Again.  I have no idea what trolls mean when they say this.   You might as well just mash the keyboard.  None of what you typed there really qualifies as English.

Do you agree that you are saying your argument is compelling here.' 

Whatever it is it isn't damaged.

So is that a "yes" or "no" or are you saying that YOU don't even know what YOU were saying when you said: "yes"?  If you can't be counted on to know what you're talking about then there really isn't any point in having a discussion with you.  Is there?

The device's demon sorts instantaneously.the quantum sorting is instantaneous hot/cold.

Thanks for admitting that. You lose.

See I wasn't telling the truth there.  It's actually the opposite.  If it happens instantaneously then it isn't using a quantum effect, in fact anything better than O(n^1/2) can not be using a quantum effect to compute.  That's the KNOWN PROVEN upper bound for quantum speed up in algorithms.   The name of the theorem is BBBV and I've posted a link to the paper way back in this thread.  You can go read it.   Hence it's somewhere between terribly unlikely to impossible that Philip's device works since it's necessary for it to use quantum effects.

Considering that 80% of the words that you post to me are you trying to AVOID actually making your position clear.  What I call Used Car Salesman tactics.  I was pretty sure that I could get you to take the opposite position simply because you are pretty much making up what you say as you go along.  Which is probably why you can't actually take on a position that isn't just nonsense speech.  Push one way...you push back the other and now you've landed on your ass. 

So is that a "yes" or "no" or are you saying that YOU don't even know what YOU are saying here?  If you can't be counted on to know what you're talking about then there really isn't any point in having a discussion with you. 

How can you say this

It's easy.  I type and characters come out.  So again you either don't know what you're talking about or you refuse to answer questions which clarify your position.   Either one PROVES that you can't communicate clearly on this subject.   Which kind of makes you lose the argument but I'm pretty sure you don't realize it.

Thanks for admitting that. You lose.

See I wasn't telling the truth there.  It's actually the opposite.  If it happens instantaneously then it isn't using a quantum effect, in fact anything better than O(n)^1/2 can not be using a quantum effect.'

Does this formula accomodate TWO bits of information on/off.

It's not a formula. It's a proof and in computer science - algorithmic proofs are independent of how the computer is organized.  That's why it doesn't matter if you implement a sort algorithm on a PC, a MAC, a Russian Setun or a quantum machine. 

Sarkeizen'algorithmic proofs are independent of how
the computer is organized.'

 you're saying that a computer cannot programme itself right?.a maxwell demon's life is dependant upon its fuel supply mr sarkeizen,just like an ant.it burns its fuel and computes which way the fuels exhaust will be managed,hot this way/cold thaddaway,TWO bits information.it was programmed by its inventor to do this or ocassionally it can be accidentaly programmed to do this. It can grow smarter if it has neighbor demons to communicate with and if they by chance happen to be possitioned/assembled as a team. The only dif between a two-bit maxwell and a two-bit computer is its fuel does not need to have a potential difference within it.it is a potential difference.