Driver to drive?

[John Larkin]

On 25 Jun 2009 14:38:02 -0500, The Phantom <phantom@aol.com> wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:22:44 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:



How about starting with 1/1 and looping on...

if the fraction is below the target, bump the numerator

if above, bump the denominator

Wouldn't that work? A PC could do some decent fraction of a billion
iterations per second. Who needs elegance these days?

John

That's what CBFalconer's brute force program does. For finding fractions with
the small numerators and denominators this thread has been discussing, and using
a modern computer, brute force is just fine.

However, when doing the computations on a slow machine, such as a pocket
calculator, continued fraction methods may be enough faster to make the
difference between a boring wait and immediate answers.

Programmable-calculator routines are the ultimate in programming
non-portability. Not so good as regards commenting, either.

John

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:22:44 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On 25 Jun 2009 11:51:01 -0500, The Phantom <phantom@aol.com> wrote:

[snip]

CBFalconer's brute force program in the "Continued Fraction Program" thread
finds them, but using semiconvergents will get them in a more elegant fashion.

How about starting with 1/1 and looping on...

if the fraction is below the target, bump the numerator

if above, bump the denominator

Wouldn't that work? A PC could do some decent fraction of a billion
iterations per second. Who needs elegance these days?

John

Sounds good to me. I might even be able to implement that as a PSpice
function ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Gourmet Puzzles:

What part of the fish are the "sticks"?

Likewise where are the chicken "fingers" located?

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On 25 Jun 2009 14:38:02 -0500, The Phantom <phantom@aol.com> wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:22:44 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

How about starting with 1/1 and looping on...

if the fraction is below the target, bump the numerator

if above, bump the denominator

Wouldn't that work? A PC could do some decent fraction of a billion
iterations per second. Who needs elegance these days?

John

That's what CBFalconer's brute force program does. For finding fractions with
the small numerators and denominators this thread has been discussing, and using
a modern computer, brute force is just fine.

However, when doing the computations on a slow machine, such as a pocket
calculator, continued fraction methods may be enough faster to make the
difference between a boring wait and immediate answers.

Elegance is its own reward.

This reminds me of a conversation my wife and I had with Dr. Fouts,
some years ago. (Dr. Fouts operates the Chimpanzee and Human
Communication Institute" at Central Washington University and our
family is a regular contributer. His advisors were Allen and Beatrix
Gardner.) We were talking about some of the work of other researchers
into primate communications using methods other than sign language
using body parts (hands, by and large.)

We talked about research using plastic, colored chips of various
colors or shapes (tokens) used to facilitate communication in lieu of
using hand-signs. And I discovered that Dr. Fouts was clearly angry
about that form of research. He told me that it was cruel to the
animals. Because, he said, "What happens when they don't have their
plastic chips around? How do they communicate?"

I understood immediately what he meant. My daughter is profoundly
autistic and I remember an event that happened many years ago and
taught me a lesson I always keep in mind. She came over to me with a
happy expression on her face and with some eagerness hand-guided me
into the kitchen. She just started, I thought, to move my hand
towards the refrigerator. But then she stopped and just stood there
and wouldn't move. And slowly, I saw her face change. She grew
increasingly 'dark.' And then she just threw herself onto the floor
and started crying and sounded so sad and miserable.

I had no idea, at first. But then after some seconds it dawned on me
that she wanted me to make something and was easger to get me into the
kitchen to let me know. But that when she directly faced the terrible
difficulty in letting me know what it was, the impossibility of it was
there and the weight of it simply crushed her emotions and broke her.

I called out to my wife and asked, "Have you recently made anything
for Athena that she liked, but might be 'a little complicated' to
prepare?" Becky said, "Yeah! Some scrambled eggs and vegetables in
the skillet."

As soon as I started drawing out the supplies for this, Athena looked
upwards from the floor and noticed that I was getting "the right
stuff" out. When she saw that, she got up and watched as I made her
the same thing. She was so excited that the communication had worked
successfully.

But the success isn't the point. It's what happens when someone knows
exactly what they want to communicate and then realize they are in an
impossible situation to express it. It is very painful. And it can
lead to profound frustration and even anger, at times.

Returning to that time with Dr. Fouts, he said that chimps get
frustrated and even angry when they have been taught to communicate
and then find themselves in a situation where 'the tools of that
communication' are unavailable. He felt it was cruel to teach an
animal such boons in communication and help them develop skills with
tools they cannot always have around. This is why he felt that sign
language was the only humane way of proceeding. A chimp always has
its body and if it learns to use what it naturally has for
communication, then there is always some chance at success when the
desire to communicate occurs. But if that language is tied ONLY to
certain items that cannot possibly always be present, then deep
frustration and possibly even anger (and violence) can be the result,
at times. He felt it was not only harmful to the chimps, but also
potentially dangerous to the researchers, to force them to rely solely
upon external devices for their communications.

We don't always have a laptop with us, a fancy desktop computer with
predictive branches, dual and quad cpus, etc. But everywhere we are,
we have our fingers and some dirt to draw in. Your point about the
pocket calculator reaches towards this point, as well. There are many
times we still need to 'communicate' with others or ourselves about
something. And it pays to know methods that don't require having a
Cray (or equivalent) at hand. Better still, if all we need are our
fingers and some dirt, or perhaps just some paper and pencil. Having
knowledge reduces that frustration from a lack of tools. And, it
"feels" wonderful, too, because of the freedom it provides.

Jon

 

[The Phantom]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:30:10 GMT, Jon Kirwan <jonk@infinitefactors.org>
wrote:

I think that's a point in the American Scientist article posted by The
Phantom under a different thread:

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/on-the-teeth-of-wheels/5

The author summarizes at the end, this way:

"The fact is, the design of simple gear trains is no longer a
computationally interesting problem, because computation itself has
overwhelmed it. With so much calculating power at your fingertips,
it's hardly worth the bother of being clever. You can solve gearing
problems by brute-force, using methods that would have been
unthinkable for Camus or Brocot, or even for Merritt, who was writing
hardly more than 50 years ago. If you need to approximate some ratio,
just have the computer try all pairs of gears with no more than 100
teeth. There are only 10,000 combinations; you can churn them out in
an instant. For a two-stage compound train, running through the 100
million possibilities is a labor of minutes."

"The whirling gears of progress have put the gearmakers out of work."

Jon

We are well and truly spoiled by the computational power so readily
available nowadays.

In a paper published in the IRE Transactions on Circuit Theory in 1958, the
author describes a rather complicated algorithm for finding the roots of a
12th degree polynomial. It was required to find the roots with negative
real parts as part of a filter design.

The algorithm was run on an IBM 650 computer and took 80 minutes, giving a
result with about 4 or 5 accurate digits.

My HP50 calculator can solve the problem in 5 seconds, with the expenditure
of about 1 watt-second of energy, returning 11 accurate digits.

On a PC, the solution is essentially instantaneous.

But....there is still a place for elegant, non-brute-force algorithms. A
problem that would take several hours on a modern computer WITH a good
algorithm just wouldn't have been possible to solve at all 50 years ago,
and could take months (or years!) on a modern computer using a brute force
method.

 

[Tim Williams]

"The Phantom" <phantom@aol.com> wrote in message
news:gmu7459igppjh6u0g2rart41ghsl2djmon@4ax.com...

But....there is still a place for elegant, non-brute-force algorithms. A
problem that would take several hours on a modern computer WITH a good
algorithm just wouldn't have been possible to solve at all 50 years ago,
and could take months (or years!) on a modern computer using a brute force
method.

Indeed. It reminds me of the projected progress of computation: in maybe 20
years we will have the computational power to brute-force simulate the human
brain. The rub? In 40 years, we'll actually know how to write that
program. Heck, for all we know, we have enough computational power today to
run a well-optimized brain program. But the complexity is so high, no team
of software engineers can comprehend enough to do it.

Maybe in 60 years, we'll have the computational tools to ask a (then) modern
computer, "write me a brain program which is optimized to run on a Core 2
Duo". Little more than a parlor trick using severely antiquated hardware;
like porting Guitar Hero to the NES. (Incidentially, by this time humanity
will have outlived its intellectual usefulness. Scary to imagine.)

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:04:29 -0500, "Tim Williams"
<tmoranwms@charter.net> wrote:

"The Phantom" <phantom@aol.com> wrote in message
news:gmu7459igppjh6u0g2rart41ghsl2djmon@4ax.com...
But....there is still a place for elegant, non-brute-force algorithms. A
problem that would take several hours on a modern computer WITH a good
algorithm just wouldn't have been possible to solve at all 50 years ago,
and could take months (or years!) on a modern computer using a brute force
method.

Indeed. It reminds me of the projected progress of computation: in maybe 20
years we will have the computational power to brute-force simulate the human
brain. The rub? In 40 years, we'll actually know how to write that
program. Heck, for all we know, we have enough computational power today to
run a well-optimized brain program. But the complexity is so high, no team
of software engineers can comprehend enough to do it.

I doubt it. Computers still aren't very good at simple stuff like
speech recognition, face recognition, language translation, driving a
car, or running a tennis-playing robot. I'm guessing that a human
brain is far more complex than a gigawatt of computers can match, even
40 years from now.

And Moore's Law is about to hit the wall.

John

 

[JosephKK]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:15:40 GMT, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On 25 Jun 2009 14:38:02 -0500, The Phantom <phantom@aol.com> wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:22:44 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

How about starting with 1/1 and looping on...

if the fraction is below the target, bump the numerator

if above, bump the denominator

Wouldn't that work? A PC could do some decent fraction of a billion
iterations per second. Who needs elegance these days?

John

That's what CBFalconer's brute force program does. For finding fractions with
the small numerators and denominators this thread has been discussing, and using
a modern computer, brute force is just fine.

However, when doing the computations on a slow machine, such as a pocket
calculator, continued fraction methods may be enough faster to make the
difference between a boring wait and immediate answers.

Elegance is its own reward.

This reminds me of a conversation my wife and I had with Dr. Fouts,
some years ago. (Dr. Fouts operates the Chimpanzee and Human
Communication Institute" at Central Washington University and our
family is a regular contributer. His advisors were Allen and Beatrix
Gardner.) We were talking about some of the work of other researchers
into primate communications using methods other than sign language
using body parts (hands, by and large.)

We talked about research using plastic, colored chips of various
colors or shapes (tokens) used to facilitate communication in lieu of
using hand-signs. And I discovered that Dr. Fouts was clearly angry
about that form of research. He told me that it was cruel to the
animals. Because, he said, "What happens when they don't have their
plastic chips around? How do they communicate?"

I understood immediately what he meant. My daughter is profoundly
autistic and I remember an event that happened many years ago and
taught me a lesson I always keep in mind. She came over to me with a
happy expression on her face and with some eagerness hand-guided me
into the kitchen. She just started, I thought, to move my hand
towards the refrigerator. But then she stopped and just stood there
and wouldn't move. And slowly, I saw her face change. She grew
increasingly 'dark.' And then she just threw herself onto the floor
and started crying and sounded so sad and miserable.

I had no idea, at first. But then after some seconds it dawned on me
that she wanted me to make something and was easger to get me into the
kitchen to let me know. But that when she directly faced the terrible
difficulty in letting me know what it was, the impossibility of it was
there and the weight of it simply crushed her emotions and broke her.

I called out to my wife and asked, "Have you recently made anything
for Athena that she liked, but might be 'a little complicated' to
prepare?" Becky said, "Yeah! Some scrambled eggs and vegetables in
the skillet."

As soon as I started drawing out the supplies for this, Athena looked
upwards from the floor and noticed that I was getting "the right
stuff" out. When she saw that, she got up and watched as I made her
the same thing. She was so excited that the communication had worked
successfully.

But the success isn't the point. It's what happens when someone knows
exactly what they want to communicate and then realize they are in an
impossible situation to express it. It is very painful. And it can
lead to profound frustration and even anger, at times.

Returning to that time with Dr. Fouts, he said that chimps get
frustrated and even angry when they have been taught to communicate
and then find themselves in a situation where 'the tools of that
communication' are unavailable. He felt it was cruel to teach an
animal such boons in communication and help them develop skills with
tools they cannot always have around. This is why he felt that sign
language was the only humane way of proceeding. A chimp always has
its body and if it learns to use what it naturally has for
communication, then there is always some chance at success when the
desire to communicate occurs. But if that language is tied ONLY to
certain items that cannot possibly always be present, then deep
frustration and possibly even anger (and violence) can be the result,
at times. He felt it was not only harmful to the chimps, but also
potentially dangerous to the researchers, to force them to rely solely
upon external devices for their communications.

We don't always have a laptop with us, a fancy desktop computer with
predictive branches, dual and quad cpus, etc. But everywhere we are,
we have our fingers and some dirt to draw in. Your point about the
pocket calculator reaches towards this point, as well. There are many
times we still need to 'communicate' with others or ourselves about
something. And it pays to know methods that don't require having a
Cray (or equivalent) at hand. Better still, if all we need are our
fingers and some dirt, or perhaps just some paper and pencil. Having
knowledge reduces that frustration from a lack of tools. And, it
"feels" wonderful, too, because of the freedom it provides.

Jon

Hell and gone off topic and off thread. But one of the more
insightful posts i have read in a long time.
The all too clear comparison and the clear demonstration of our
humanity being hostage to our ability to communicate is very
memorable.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:51:49 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

And Moore's Law is about to hit the wall.

What makes you say this? It seems like every few years somebody announces
some kind of "quantum limitation" or some such, and the researchers just
keep blithely breaking the known limits of what's possible.

My mind still boggles when I consider a processor with a clock that's
faster than the output freq. of my microwave oven.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Vladimir Vassilevsky]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:51:49 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

And Moore's Law is about to hit the wall.

What makes you say this? It seems like every few years somebody announces
some kind of "quantum limitation" or some such, and the researchers just
keep blithely breaking the known limits of what's possible.

It is not about the physical limits; the physical limits are quite far.
The new technologies are not paying off, and this is what really sets
the limit. The saturation point is reached. There is a whole bunch of
already developed advanced technologies that are not deployed widely
because of the economical reasons; X-ray lithography is one example.

My mind still boggles when I consider a processor with a clock that's
faster than the output freq. of my microwave oven.

If your processor clock would be x10 times faster then now, would it
provide any better value to you? If so, how much are you willing to pay
for that? I don't see much difference between the computers of today and
the computers of 10 years ago.


Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:51:49 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
And Moore's Law is about to hit the wall.

What makes you say this? It seems like every few years somebody announces
some kind of "quantum limitation" or some such, and the researchers just
keep blithely breaking the known limits of what's possible.

My mind still boggles when I consider a processor with a clock that's
faster than the output freq. of my microwave oven.

Thanks,
Rich

I recall the good old days when papers in the IEEE Proceedings solemnly
announced that 100nm was the end of the line for semiconductors. Now,
IIRC, there are transistors made from graphene at the 1 nm level.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

 

[Phil Hobbs]

Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:51:49 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

And Moore's Law is about to hit the wall.

What makes you say this? It seems like every few years somebody announces
some kind of "quantum limitation" or some such, and the researchers just
keep blithely breaking the known limits of what's possible.

It is not about the physical limits; the physical limits are quite far.
The new technologies are not paying off, and this is what really sets
the limit. The saturation point is reached. There is a whole bunch of
already developed advanced technologies that are not deployed widely
because of the economical reasons; X-ray lithography is one example.

My mind still boggles when I consider a processor with a clock that's
faster than the output freq. of my microwave oven.

If your processor clock would be x10 times faster then now, would it
provide any better value to you? If so, how much are you willing to pay
for that? I don't see much difference between the computers of today and
the computers of 10 years ago.

The physical limits aren't far at all. Transistors started getting
worse instead of better at the 45 nm node.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Phil Hobbs wrote:

Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:


Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:51:49 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

And Moore's Law is about to hit the wall.

What makes you say this? It seems like every few years somebody
announces
some kind of "quantum limitation" or some such, and the researchers just
keep blithely breaking the known limits of what's possible.

It is not about the physical limits; the physical limits are quite
far. The new technologies are not paying off, and this is what really
sets the limit. The saturation point is reached. There is a whole
bunch of already developed advanced technologies that are not deployed
widely because of the economical reasons; X-ray lithography is one
example.

My mind still boggles when I consider a processor with a clock that's
faster than the output freq. of my microwave oven.

If your processor clock would be x10 times faster then now, would it
provide any better value to you? If so, how much are you willing to
pay for that? I don't see much difference between the computers of
today and the computers of 10 years ago.


The physical limits aren't far at all. Transistors started getting
worse instead of better at the 45 nm node.

Which means it is nearly time for a change in technology, probably to
carbon.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

 

[Phil Hobbs]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:


Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:51:49 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

And Moore's Law is about to hit the wall.

What makes you say this? It seems like every few years somebody
announces
some kind of "quantum limitation" or some such, and the researchers
just
keep blithely breaking the known limits of what's possible.

It is not about the physical limits; the physical limits are quite
far. The new technologies are not paying off, and this is what really
sets the limit. The saturation point is reached. There is a whole
bunch of already developed advanced technologies that are not
deployed widely because of the economical reasons; X-ray lithography
is one example.

My mind still boggles when I consider a processor with a clock that's
faster than the output freq. of my microwave oven.

If your processor clock would be x10 times faster then now, would it
provide any better value to you? If so, how much are you willing to
pay for that? I don't see much difference between the computers of
today and the computers of 10 years ago.


The physical limits aren't far at all. Transistors started getting
worse instead of better at the 45 nm node.

Which means it is nearly time for a change in technology, probably to
carbon.

Everybody's hoping so, but it's sort of like going from bicycles to
airplanes in one go. The fabrication problems are completely different
from silicon. The era of Mead-Conway style scaling is definitely over.

Cheers


Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:10:29 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:


Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:51:49 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

And Moore's Law is about to hit the wall.

What makes you say this? It seems like every few years somebody announces
some kind of "quantum limitation" or some such, and the researchers just
keep blithely breaking the known limits of what's possible.

It is not about the physical limits; the physical limits are quite far.
The new technologies are not paying off, and this is what really sets
the limit. The saturation point is reached. There is a whole bunch of
already developed advanced technologies that are not deployed widely
because of the economical reasons; X-ray lithography is one example.

My mind still boggles when I consider a processor with a clock that's
faster than the output freq. of my microwave oven.

If your processor clock would be x10 times faster then now, would it
provide any better value to you? If so, how much are you willing to pay
for that? I don't see much difference between the computers of today and
the computers of 10 years ago.


The physical limits aren't far at all. Transistors started getting
worse instead of better at the 45 nm node.

As the cost of a mask set hit $20e6 or so. Fewer and fewer designs can
justify the expense of a billion transistors. So the fab equipment
business will have a shrinking base of applications to spread their
costs over.

John

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Phil Hobbs wrote:

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:


Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:51:49 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

And Moore's Law is about to hit the wall.

What makes you say this? It seems like every few years somebody
announces
some kind of "quantum limitation" or some such, and the researchers
just
keep blithely breaking the known limits of what's possible.

It is not about the physical limits; the physical limits are quite
far. The new technologies are not paying off, and this is what
really sets the limit. The saturation point is reached. There is a
whole bunch of already developed advanced technologies that are not
deployed widely because of the economical reasons; X-ray lithography
is one example.

My mind still boggles when I consider a processor with a clock that's
faster than the output freq. of my microwave oven.

If your processor clock would be x10 times faster then now, would it
provide any better value to you? If so, how much are you willing to
pay for that? I don't see much difference between the computers of
today and the computers of 10 years ago.


The physical limits aren't far at all. Transistors started getting
worse instead of better at the 45 nm node.

Which means it is nearly time for a change in technology, probably to
carbon.


Everybody's hoping so, but it's sort of like going from bicycles to
airplanes in one go. The fabrication problems are completely different
from silicon. The era of Mead-Conway style scaling is definitely over.

Well, beyond carbon there has got to be a change to self assembling
nanotech. After all, that's how Nature makes brains.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:10:29 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:51:49 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

And Moore's Law is about to hit the wall.
What makes you say this? It seems like every few years somebody announces
some kind of "quantum limitation" or some such, and the researchers just
keep blithely breaking the known limits of what's possible.
It is not about the physical limits; the physical limits are quite far.
The new technologies are not paying off, and this is what really sets
the limit. The saturation point is reached. There is a whole bunch of
already developed advanced technologies that are not deployed widely
because of the economical reasons; X-ray lithography is one example.

My mind still boggles when I consider a processor with a clock that's
faster than the output freq. of my microwave oven.
If your processor clock would be x10 times faster then now, would it
provide any better value to you? If so, how much are you willing to pay
for that? I don't see much difference between the computers of today and
the computers of 10 years ago.

The physical limits aren't far at all. Transistors started getting
worse instead of better at the 45 nm node.


As the cost of a mask set hit $20e6 or so. Fewer and fewer designs can
justify the expense of a billion transistors. So the fab equipment
business will have a shrinking base of applications to spread their
costs over.

Memory is the obvious application.
There's no letup in memory requirements, nor is there likely to be.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

 

[Phil Hobbs]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:


Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:51:49 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

And Moore's Law is about to hit the wall.

What makes you say this? It seems like every few years somebody
announces
some kind of "quantum limitation" or some such, and the
researchers just
keep blithely breaking the known limits of what's possible.

It is not about the physical limits; the physical limits are quite
far. The new technologies are not paying off, and this is what
really sets the limit. The saturation point is reached. There is a
whole bunch of already developed advanced technologies that are not
deployed widely because of the economical reasons; X-ray
lithography is one example.

My mind still boggles when I consider a processor with a clock that's
faster than the output freq. of my microwave oven.

If your processor clock would be x10 times faster then now, would
it provide any better value to you? If so, how much are you willing
to pay for that? I don't see much difference between the computers
of today and the computers of 10 years ago.


The physical limits aren't far at all. Transistors started getting
worse instead of better at the 45 nm node.

Which means it is nearly time for a change in technology, probably to
carbon.


Everybody's hoping so, but it's sort of like going from bicycles to
airplanes in one go. The fabrication problems are completely
different from silicon. The era of Mead-Conway style scaling is
definitely over.

Well, beyond carbon there has got to be a change to self assembling
nanotech. After all, that's how Nature makes brains.

I think we'll just have to send an expedition to find a universe where
the atoms are smaller. Like to volunteer?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:40:38 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:


Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:51:49 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

And Moore's Law is about to hit the wall.

What makes you say this? It seems like every few years somebody
announces
some kind of "quantum limitation" or some such, and the researchers
just
keep blithely breaking the known limits of what's possible.

It is not about the physical limits; the physical limits are quite
far. The new technologies are not paying off, and this is what really
sets the limit. The saturation point is reached. There is a whole
bunch of already developed advanced technologies that are not
deployed widely because of the economical reasons; X-ray lithography
is one example.

My mind still boggles when I consider a processor with a clock that's
faster than the output freq. of my microwave oven.

If your processor clock would be x10 times faster then now, would it
provide any better value to you? If so, how much are you willing to
pay for that? I don't see much difference between the computers of
today and the computers of 10 years ago.


The physical limits aren't far at all. Transistors started getting
worse instead of better at the 45 nm node.

Which means it is nearly time for a change in technology, probably to
carbon.


Everybody's hoping so, but it's sort of like going from bicycles to
airplanes in one go. The fabrication problems are completely different
from silicon. The era of Mead-Conway style scaling is definitely over.

Cheers


Phil Hobbs

Maybe, maybe not. Certainly the classical version has given the
process people many fits, busted design tools, challenged design
ideas, and many other things. Power control and heat dissipation has
dogged us for many years.
It is not stopping the process people from going for it.

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Phil Hobbs wrote:

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:


Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:51:49 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

And Moore's Law is about to hit the wall.

What makes you say this? It seems like every few years somebody
announces
some kind of "quantum limitation" or some such, and the
researchers just
keep blithely breaking the known limits of what's possible.

It is not about the physical limits; the physical limits are quite
far. The new technologies are not paying off, and this is what
really sets the limit. The saturation point is reached. There is a
whole bunch of already developed advanced technologies that are
not deployed widely because of the economical reasons; X-ray
lithography is one example.

My mind still boggles when I consider a processor with a clock
that's
faster than the output freq. of my microwave oven.

If your processor clock would be x10 times faster then now, would
it provide any better value to you? If so, how much are you
willing to pay for that? I don't see much difference between the
computers of today and the computers of 10 years ago.


The physical limits aren't far at all. Transistors started getting
worse instead of better at the 45 nm node.

Which means it is nearly time for a change in technology, probably
to carbon.


Everybody's hoping so, but it's sort of like going from bicycles to
airplanes in one go. The fabrication problems are completely
different from silicon. The era of Mead-Conway style scaling is
definitely over.

Well, beyond carbon there has got to be a change to self assembling
nanotech. After all, that's how Nature makes brains.


I think we'll just have to send an expedition to find a universe where
the atoms are smaller. Like to volunteer?

An un-optimised biocomputer can execute an estimated 10^16 FLOPS per kg
using around 20W. Just on power consumption, and assuming non-reversible
computing, there's at least 4 orders of magnitude of efficiency to be
had. So the ultimate, near term feasible, laptop should be able to knock
out 10^20 FLOPS or so. That's about 1 billion times better than today's
machines.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:08:51 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
<dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:


Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:51:49 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

And Moore's Law is about to hit the wall.

What makes you say this? It seems like every few years somebody
announces
some kind of "quantum limitation" or some such, and the
researchers just
keep blithely breaking the known limits of what's possible.

It is not about the physical limits; the physical limits are quite
far. The new technologies are not paying off, and this is what
really sets the limit. The saturation point is reached. There is a
whole bunch of already developed advanced technologies that are
not deployed widely because of the economical reasons; X-ray
lithography is one example.

My mind still boggles when I consider a processor with a clock
that's
faster than the output freq. of my microwave oven.

If your processor clock would be x10 times faster then now, would
it provide any better value to you? If so, how much are you
willing to pay for that? I don't see much difference between the
computers of today and the computers of 10 years ago.


The physical limits aren't far at all. Transistors started getting
worse instead of better at the 45 nm node.

Which means it is nearly time for a change in technology, probably
to carbon.


Everybody's hoping so, but it's sort of like going from bicycles to
airplanes in one go. The fabrication problems are completely
different from silicon. The era of Mead-Conway style scaling is
definitely over.

Well, beyond carbon there has got to be a change to self assembling
nanotech. After all, that's how Nature makes brains.


I think we'll just have to send an expedition to find a universe where
the atoms are smaller. Like to volunteer?

An un-optimised biocomputer can execute an estimated 10^16 FLOPS per kg
using around 20W. Just on power consumption, and assuming non-reversible
computing, there's at least 4 orders of magnitude of efficiency to be
had. So the ultimate, near term feasible, laptop should be able to knock
out 10^20 FLOPS or so. That's about 1 billion times better than today's
machines.

That's about what I'd need to run Spice fast enough that I can vary
component values with a slider and see the transient response change
in real time.

John