On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Chris de Morsella <cdemorse...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> *>> If it's not random then it happened for a reason, and things happen
> in a computer for a reason too.*
> > Sure, but the "reason" may not be amenable to being completely contained
> within the confines of a deterministic algorithm
What on earth are you talking about? The deterministic algorithm behaves as
it does for a reason but does not do so for a reason??!!
> > if it depends on a series of outside processes
If it depends on something then it's deterministic.
> *> > At the time it may have been a supercomputer but that was 16 years
>> ago and the computer you're reading this E mail message on right now is
>> almost certainly more powerful than the computer that beat the best human
>> chess player in the world. And chess programs have gotten a lot better
>> too. So all that spaghetti and complexity at the cellular level that you
>> were rhapsodizing about didn't work as well as an antique computer running
>> a ancient chess program.
***> You are incorrect even today Deep Blue is still quite powerful
> compared to a PC*
Not unless your meaning of "powerful" is radically diferent from mine.
> > The Deep Blue machine specs:
> It was a massively parallel<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_parallel>,
> RS/6000 SP Thin
> system with 30 nodes, with each node containing a 120 MHz
> microprocessor <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microprocessor> for a total
> of 30, enhanced with 480 special purpose
> VLSI<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very-large-scale_integration>chess chips.
> Its chess playing program was written in
> C <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(programming_language)> and ran under
> the AIX <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIX_operating_system> operating
> system <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system>. It was capable of
> evaluating 200 million positions per second, twice as fast as the 1996
> version. In June 1997, Deep Blue was the 259th most powerful
> supercomputer<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercomputer>according to the
> TOP500 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOP500> list, achieving 11.38
> GFLOPS<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFLOPS>on the High-Performance
> LINPACK <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LINPACK>
> I doubt the machine you are writing your email on even comes close to
> that level of performance; I know mine does not achieve that level of
Are you really quite sure of that? The computer I'm typing this on is an
ancient iMac that was not top of the line even back a full Moore's Law
generation ago when it was new, back in the olden bygone days of 2011. Like
all computers the number of floating point operations per second it can
perform depends on the problem, but in computing dot products running
multi-threaded vector code it runs at 34.3 GFOPS; so Deep Blue running at
11.38 GFLOPS doesn't seem as impressive as it did in 1997.
Right now the fastest supercomputer in the world has a LINPACK rating of
54.9 pentaflop*s, a *pentaflop IS A MILLION GFLOPS; so today that Chinese
supercomputer is 4.8 millions times as powerful as Deep Blue was in 1997.
And in just a few years that supercomputer will join Deep Blue on the
antique computer junk pile.
John K Clark
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.