On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 5:51:26 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 31 Oct 2019, at 12:00, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > 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]> 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 > > I am including with the program (C, Python, etc. the whole system (compiler, interpreter) that takes the program (implementing a common "algorithm") and ultimately produces machine code for different machines.
If there was a universal compiler that could take a program in any (of the top 10 languages, say) and produce the lowest energy and fastest version transformation of the program for the target machine, that would be quite a compiler. @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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5edc388e-6c40-42a7-bf22-ca37cf369ae5%40googlegroups.com.
