> On 31 Oct 2019, at 12:00, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 5:47:14 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 6:54 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > >> The computation is the same independently of the substrate of its > >> implementation. For example, you could run the same program on a computer > >> based on vacuum tubes or transistors, with the same output. > Stathis Papaioannou > > > That's the case for the conventional-Platonistic definition of computing. > > Not the case for computing with a material-intrinsic semantics. > > So according to "material-intrinsic semantics" the 4 that a vacuum tube > computer produces when it adds 2+2 is not the same 4 that a transistor > computer produces when it adds 2+2; and the 4 a white man gets when he adds > 2+2 does not mean the same thing as the 4 a black man gets when he adds 2+2, > and there is a male 4 when a man makes the addition and a female 4 when a > woman does. So how can a serious person consider anything as monumentally > silly as a computational theory involving "material-intrinsic semantics"? > > John K Clark > > > If there is a program in C vs. a program in Python (vs. Java, etc.) that > produce the same I/O, which uses the least energy?
It all depends on the algorithm, and not of the language (but still on the way that language is implemented). The only thing which requires energy is in the erasure of the information (Landauer). Yet, it has been shown (by Hao Wang) that we can get Turing universality with elementary operations which never erase anything. This is of course reflected in quantum computations, which have to reversible, and never dissipate energy. Computations does not require energy, except for read and write, and interaction with the users. For example, instead of using the combinators K (which erase information, as Kxy = x, implies that the information in y has vanished), we can use the base I, B, C, W: Ix = x (identity) Bxyz = x(yz) (composer, applicator) Cxyz = xzy (permuter) Wxy = xyy, (duplicator) In that case we can avoid using energy. So, your question is that it depends on the number of erasing done in your algorithm, and in the universal machine implementing your algorithm. The presence of the quantum axioms ([]p->p, + p-> [<>p, for p sigma_1) in the self-referential “observable” modes suggests that this remains true in the physics extracted from arithmetic (or from any universal machinery). Bruno > > Or a man vs. a woman that adds. :) > > > Material-intrinsic semantics are a UCNC conferences topic. Check them out. > > @philipthrift > > -- > 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 [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6082ee76-085b-4e33-82fc-b7a872c55b15%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6082ee76-085b-4e33-82fc-b7a872c55b15%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/598FEC4A-5928-4DC3-B6C3-76A20B3DFEDA%40ulb.ac.be.
