Mike and Anastasios, Is this discussion a simple confusion, believing that algorithms are characteristically sequential, which is ONLY the case on "modern" digital computers. Even clunky old analog computers don't suffer this weakness, yet what they do are certainly "algorithms". I have written on this forum in the past about this weakness with "modern" digital computers and how to overcome it with better architecture, but no one wanted to discuss such things.
Just because everything is done in parallel does NOT mean that it isn't performing according to an algorithm. Steve ============== On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Anastasios Tsiolakidis < [email protected]> wrote: > I think we can make a small concession to the Tintnerooni (aka Tintner > Machine) that we don't really have any parallel algorithms as such, or if > we do we assume we (pretend we) can guarantee something like A will happen > before B, or A and B will cause C and D "atomically" (I am borrowing the > term from database ACID guarantees , and basically we expose ourselves to > extreme non-linearity and chaotic behaviors from which we usually try to > shield our algorithms, so yeah, in a sense we don't really have parallel > algorithms, just as we don't have numeric algorithms "in general" because > of all the truncating and butchering that numbers (quantities) suffer > inside our algorithms. So yeah, we are faking it but for large classes of > problems we can fake it pretty well. As I've stated multiple times, I am > quite optimistic about our ability to engineer AGI with the current, > perhaps limited, toolset which we haven't really pushed to its limits, not > by any stretch of the imagination. > > Perhaps a complexity scientist could comment on whether chaotic phenomena > are algorithmic in some stronger or weaker sense, but I fear she would > simply assert that she could approximate them algorithmically to > arbitrarily small errors. By analogy to the 3-body problem and n-body > problem I would conjecture that all parallel systems are chaotic, that is > all universes, all intellects, all lifeforms. > > AT > > AT > > > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:44 PM, just camel <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Also using multi core processors, FPGA, VLSI, etc. and some form of IPC, >> RTOS, networking interface, etc. you can have a billion random number >> generators interacting with each other in parallel and in real-time. You >> could compose and play a million songs in parallel on your piano ... >> >> By the way ... >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=DAcjV60RnRw<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAcjV60RnRw>;-) >> >> >> >> On 05/12/2013 11:13 AM, Steve Richfield wrote: >> >>> Should someone tell Mike about random number generators? >>> >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------**------------- >> AGI >> Archives: >> https://www.listbox.com/**member/archive/303/=now<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/**member/archive/rss/303/** >> 14050631-7d925eb1<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/14050631-7d925eb1> >> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/**member/?&id_** >> secret=14050631-0f2019c2 <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> >> >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >> > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full employment. ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
