Thanks for bringing us back to the topic, TimeNot.
I do believe it has been pretty much shown that Pro7's "ideas" or "discoveries" about some special capability of the IBM 5100 are tenuous, at best, and downright incorrect, at worst. His descriptions of what he calls "reversable binaries" has made no connection to the actual binary code (it only went as far as the BASIC interpreter) and he has further shown no reason to believe that, even if the IBM 5100 can perform this "reversable binaries" feat, that it has anything to do with the 5100's hardware. Moreover, this alleged quote from Pro7 shared by titorite from a PM he received is incorrect:
IBM 5100 Emulation design has a reversable binarial capability. Modern computers do not have this capability.
From the (very!) little description Pro7 provided, this capability amounts to nothing more than reading and executing program instructions in reverse order. The benefit of doing so has not been established, and the problems in doing so have been highlighted in one example by bogz. But ANY modern computer could be made to execute instructions in reverse order. Next we had the following from Pro7:
You may need to study this yourself what this means. Do not let other "experts" tell you otherwise what it means.
Apparantly, either he does not wish to tell us what it means, or he can NOT tell us what it means. Furthermore, even though he cannot tell us what he means he wishes to set himself up as the only authority on it by telling us to not let other "experts" tell us what it means. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif
This "reversable binary language" concept was never taught in computer science courses in school or college, except only the direct aspect of the binary language being taught as if it is a "true" universal language. In computer science courses or books written anywhere, has no indication of such "reversable binary language".
Once again we have a setup for "only *I* can tell you about this feature". The second part of the first sentence is difficult to understand..so who knows what he is referring to there. And since NO books ANYWHERE have this capability described or documented, one must then ask the natural question "Is there such a capability, or are we being fed BS?"
*why do you think it was called the Emulation 360?*
The answer to this is simple. The IBM mainframes at that time had an operating system that was called
"System 360 (S/360)." And the IBM 5100 was certainly designed to be capable of emulating that HW+SW mainframe system.
What happens then if a modern computer has a "reversable binarial capability?" This means the entire hardware package must support it, not software alone.
Time and again we have addressed this incorrect statement. And Pro7 has not even attempted to correct himself or even address us as to why we might be mistaken. What he describes as "reversable binarial capability" can most certainly be implemented in SW, and would NOT require any HW modifications at all. Period.
Later we heard from Pro7 directly:
I had my friend review the entire forum from the day I joined up and claimed about the "reversable binaries" in the IBM 5100 machine. Even then he didnt believe me either. I tried and tried to explain it to him, he kept shaking his head, until finally I indicated the hardware methods...
And what is apparantly mysterious is that when he finally "indicated the hardware methods..." his friend "got it". Yet Pro7 cannot seem to describe these "hardware methods" to us so we can "get it" (and I seriously doubt that anything he could tell us would be viable).
If you had it this way, on a regular modernized computer:
30] END
20] Goto 10
10] Print "Hi how are you?"
It will create a syntax error. It is impossible for the computer to compute.
This is NOT TRUE for any number of reasons. First reason is that virtually ALL modern computers and their BASIC compilers/interpreters have dropped the need for line numbers altogether. But going with your example on the IBM 5100 and its BASIC interpreter (which was improved and added to the later IBM-PC line), it would NOT GENERATE a syntax error, because even though you may have typed the lines in the order you see above, the line numbers themselves are used to order the program. The IBM BASIC interpreter of that day and age WOULD accept the lines just as you typed them, and if you then issued a "LIST" command it would list back the program in the proper order (the clue is, it used the line numbers to determine what order you intended):
10] Print "Hi how are you?"
20] Goto 10
30] END
That is exactly what the computer would list, and this is NOT any magical feature. It is simply using the line numbers of the program in the EXACT manner in which they were intended! ANY BASIC interpreter from the late 70s and early 80s has this capability.
On the IBM 5100 machine, that machine only, can read this clearly and compute. It is to be READ UPWARDS. IT CAN ALSO READ DOWNWARDS if you input the 10 line first.
This is simply not true, as I have explained above.
So all of this hoopla that Pro7 has attempted to stir up (currently) amounts to nothing. There is no "there" there.
RMT