So when do you guys play DS, anyway?

External Since: Apr 13, 2004 Posts: 993

On 2005-06-17, Thomas J. Boschloo <nospam.DeleteThis@hccnet.nl.invalid> wrote:
>
> emmel wrote:
>> On 2005-06-13, The Triad <wanderer.DeleteThis@beeb.web> wrote:
>>
>>><snip>
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Problem is that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>requires *plenty* of data and even more calculation power.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Yes. But... sooner or later... we, /someone/ has to try.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Not on that scale. Too much to compute.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>...then a slightly[/somewhat] higher scale, but still covering the
>>>>>>>>>basic
>>>>>>>>>interactions...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Can't think of anything like that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's why something like it needs to be designed and/or implemented.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In other words: I don't think that's really possible.
>>>>>
>>>>>...maybe some day, then. Some day, a decade or so from now, when
>>>>>computers
>>>>>are to computers these days what computers these days are to computers a
>>>>>decade ago... *dreams*
>>>>
>>>>There's a limit to computing power, you know?
>>>
>>>"I'll know--or not--when we hit it. Until then, I'm optimistic."
>>
>>
>> Erm, yes...
>
> Let me try to explain him:
>
> 1] There is a finite number of particles in the universe

Not necessarily.

> 2] There is a finite amount of space between these particles

Depends.

> 3] There is a finite speed of light

Yup.

> Now construct a computer ignoring things like wiring and cpu's (and
> software). Put all the particles in the universe at the closed possible
> distance to each other and assume that they can 'talk' to each other at
> the speed of light. Make the speed of a single clock cycle the amount of
> time it takes a signal to travel between two particles at their closest
> possible distance.
>
> This computer will have a clockspeed, number of operations during a
> cycle. So you will come up with a number of about between 2^512 and
> 2^1024 if my memory doesn't fail me.
>
> Note that you can only have one such a computer and there won't be
> anything left to live on yourself.
>
> But QC might help break these limits (but there hasn't been any
> significant process so far. I think they factored the number 6 or
> something but you can do that with your mind also).

Hm... that's two times five? No... probably three times four... no. Ah!
faculty of forty-two!
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better... Smile

Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.

External Since: Sep 12, 2004 Posts: 294

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

emmel schreef:
> On 2005-06-17, Thomas J. Boschloo <nospam DeleteThis @hccnet.nl.invalid> wrote:
>
>>emmel wrote:
>>
>>>On 2005-06-13, The Triad <wanderer DeleteThis @beeb.web> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>><snip>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Problem is that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>requires *plenty* of data and even more calculation power.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes. But... sooner or later... we, /someone/ has to try.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Not on that scale. Too much to compute.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>...then a slightly[/somewhat] higher scale, but still covering the
>>>>>>>>>>basic
>>>>>>>>>>interactions...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Can't think of anything like that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That's why something like it needs to be designed and/or implemented.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In other words: I don't think that's really possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>...maybe some day, then. Some day, a decade or so from now, when
>>>>>>computers
>>>>>>are to computers these days what computers these days are to computers a
>>>>>>decade ago... *dreams*
>>>>>
>>>>>There's a limit to computing power, you know?
>>>>
>>>>"I'll know--or not--when we hit it. Until then, I'm optimistic."
>>>
>>>
>>>Erm, yes...
>>
>>Let me try to explain him:
>>
>>1] There is a finite number of particles in the universe
>
>
> Not necessarily.

The is a finite amount of 'mass' (and 'energy') in the universe then.

>>2] There is a finite amount of space between these particles
>
>
> Depends.

Even in a black hole there are distances between particles. Someone in
sci.crypt told me (this kind of discussion comes up in there once in a
while).

>>3] There is a finite speed of light
>
>
> Yup.
>
>
>>Now construct a computer ignoring things like wiring and cpu's (and
>>software). Put all the particles in the universe at the closed possible
>>distance to each other and assume that they can 'talk' to each other at
>>the speed of light. Make the speed of a single clock cycle the amount of
>>time it takes a signal to travel between two particles at their closest
>>possible distance.
>>
>>This computer will have a clockspeed, number of operations during a
>>cycle. So you will come up with a number of about between 2^512 and
>>2^1024 if my memory doesn't fail me.
>>
>>Note that you can only have one such a computer and there won't be
>>anything left to live on yourself.
>>
>>But QC might help break these limits (but there hasn't been any
>>significant process so far. I think they factored the number 6 or
>>something but you can do that with your mind also).
>
>
> Hm... that's two times five? No... probably three times four... no. Ah!
> faculty of forty-two!

You badly need a QC!
Thomas
- --
"You can't be safer, can't be more secure than with a breast in each
palm, that's the way I was born and that's the way I want to die" -
Sugarcubes, Mama, 1988
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQB5AwUBQrhIIAEP2l8iXKAJAQIOVQMfRoPdeG3YjayK9EqFiHNwGStYwPZhFXxx
A0i31RC1ruBOJI7WKYZ6WAuoeFe+vtc9t13tgPm+sTF46y4ZPb2Hpg72nIzYIvJA
2eNGPd4vJjnyezhLvJQOpmc+T+3mn11qYJK1jA==
=4s85
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----