3 ms·

I have no idea what you mean by "perform Boolean circuits" in the context of this discussion. Bottom line: vNA based computers are inefficient, regardless of w

by p1esk 10y ago

I have no idea what you mean by "perform Boolean circuits" in the context of this discussion. Bottom line: vNA based computers are inefficient, regardless of what they are trying to compute. But they do most of the tasks fast enough for us not to care. When it's not fast enough, people build ASICs.

SilasX 10y ago
A Boolean circuit is a circuit that implements a Boolean expression (given input signals set to 1/0, output the 1/0 value corresponding to the result of substituting them into that expression.) Computers at their core are machines designed to implement many such circuits, of many varieties, per second, and send their signals to output devices or their own internal state. When CPU makers design them, they are optimizing for the efficiency (with respect to cost, space, mass, energy consumption, et/vel cetera) with which they perform that task. They do not specifically optimize them for hosting forum discussions; instead, the software or OS designer chooses instructions for the CPU that allow it to accomplish that efficiently. All of the above was in response to your claim that computers are only (somewhat) efficient at what they're designed to do. But they're designed to implement boolean circuits (and write to peripherals), they're not designed to host discussion forums, et cetera, and yet they're still good at the latter. What do you disagree with there? >Bottom line: vNA based computers are inefficient, regardless of what they are trying to compute If modern computers are "inefficient" at summing numbers (or hosting discussion forums, for that matter), then may I forever be dredged in Soviet bureaucracy!
- p1esk 10y ago
  Computers are circuits. Those circuits don't change every second. They never change, unless there's a programmable logic embedded somewhere. Perhaps you're confusing "circuits" and "operations", e.g. "adder" and "addition"? Of course CPU designers optimize those circuits for speed/power/etc. of the instructions. No one says the implementation of those instructions is inefficient. It's the way of performing high level tasks, dictated by available instructions in the ISA, which in turn is dictated by vNA, is inefficient. Why would we care about how efficient are the instructions, if the tasks we are interested in, when performed with those instructions, are inefficient?
  - SilasX 10y ago
    I'm not sure why you're belaboring the distinction between circuits and ops, if you understood and agreed with the (sub)point I was making there. Do you disagree with the broader point I was making, that "computers" -- in the sense of computer hardware -- aren't specifically designed for many tasks for which they're used? We can agree that computers aren't designed to host discussion forums, right? And we can agree that the hardware design is focused on efficiency of fast execution of the cir-- sorry, operations, not the discussion forums per se, right? So what were you disputing there? If you agree that computer hardware architecture isn't optimized for hosting discussion forums, then it sound like you agree computers aren't designed for that. And if you agree that they're nonetheless good at hosting forums, then it sounds like you're walking back on your earlier claim. >It's the way of performing high level tasks, dictated by available instructions in the ISA, which in turn is dictated by vNA, is inefficient. Again, where are you getting this? In what relevant sense is a vNA computer "inefficient" at sums or hosting discussion forums? It's not only efficient in absolute terms, but more efficient that any other known method. Again, if that's "inefficiency", I don't want to be efficient! What would be the non-vNA architecture that would do it more efficiently? Why would a neural net be better at hosting discussions? Again, you can definitely hammer them into the shape of one application-specific computation of one size; but having to do that for every application you'd ever want to do does not sound like efficient hardware.
    - p1esk 10y ago
      Being good at something, and being efficient at something, in general, is not equivalent. Earliest computers were designed for calculating missile trajectories, and they were good at that task. Not efficient (required a large room, cost millions, and consumed megawatts of power), but fast enough to produce results faster than any other known method. Later, this design, which was inefficient even for the original task, was used for other tasks, and it was of course even more inefficient there. Modern computers have become more efficient at the original task (numeric calculations), but they are still horribly inefficient for hosting forums, because of the limits of vNA. If you want to have something that is more efficient, the answer is easy - build a specialized processor, designed to host forums. It won't be able to do anything else, but if will be orders of magnitude more efficient at hosing forums. You have to choose having one computer that is inefficient at many different tasks, or many computers that are efficient at single tasks.

by p1esk 10y ago

SilasX 10y ago

A Boolean circuit is a circuit that implements a Boolean expression (given input signals set to 1/0, output the 1/0 value corresponding to the result of substituting them into that expression.) Computers at their core are machines designed to implement many such circuits, of many varieties, per second, and send their signals to output devices or their own internal state. When CPU makers design them, they are optimizing for the efficiency (with respect to cost, space, mass, energy consumption, et/vel cetera) with which they perform that task. They do not specifically optimize them for hosting forum discussions; instead, the software or OS designer chooses instructions for the CPU that allow it to accomplish that efficiently. All of the above was in response to your claim that computers are only (somewhat) efficient at what they're designed to do. But they're designed to implement boolean circuits (and write to peripherals), they're not designed to host discussion forums, et cetera, and yet they're still good at the latter. What do you disagree with there? >Bottom line: vNA based computers are inefficient, regardless of what they are trying to compute If modern computers are "inefficient" at summing numbers (or hosting discussion forums, for that matter), then may I forever be dredged in Soviet bureaucracy!

p1esk 10y ago
Computers are circuits. Those circuits don't change every second. They never change, unless there's a programmable logic embedded somewhere. Perhaps you're confusing "circuits" and "operations", e.g. "adder" and "addition"? Of course CPU designers optimize those circuits for speed/power/etc. of the instructions. No one says the implementation of those instructions is inefficient. It's the way of performing high level tasks, dictated by available instructions in the ISA, which in turn is dictated by vNA, is inefficient. Why would we care about how efficient are the instructions, if the tasks we are interested in, when performed with those instructions, are inefficient?
- SilasX 10y ago
  I'm not sure why you're belaboring the distinction between circuits and ops, if you understood and agreed with the (sub)point I was making there. Do you disagree with the broader point I was making, that "computers" -- in the sense of computer hardware -- aren't specifically designed for many tasks for which they're used? We can agree that computers aren't designed to host discussion forums, right? And we can agree that the hardware design is focused on efficiency of fast execution of the cir-- sorry, operations, not the discussion forums per se, right? So what were you disputing there? If you agree that computer hardware architecture isn't optimized for hosting discussion forums, then it sound like you agree computers aren't designed for that. And if you agree that they're nonetheless good at hosting forums, then it sounds like you're walking back on your earlier claim. >It's the way of performing high level tasks, dictated by available instructions in the ISA, which in turn is dictated by vNA, is inefficient. Again, where are you getting this? In what relevant sense is a vNA computer "inefficient" at sums or hosting discussion forums? It's not only efficient in absolute terms, but more efficient that any other known method. Again, if that's "inefficiency", I don't want to be efficient! What would be the non-vNA architecture that would do it more efficiently? Why would a neural net be better at hosting discussions? Again, you can definitely hammer them into the shape of one application-specific computation of one size; but having to do that for every application you'd ever want to do does not sound like efficient hardware.
  - p1esk 10y ago
    Being good at something, and being efficient at something, in general, is not equivalent. Earliest computers were designed for calculating missile trajectories, and they were good at that task. Not efficient (required a large room, cost millions, and consumed megawatts of power), but fast enough to produce results faster than any other known method. Later, this design, which was inefficient even for the original task, was used for other tasks, and it was of course even more inefficient there. Modern computers have become more efficient at the original task (numeric calculations), but they are still horribly inefficient for hosting forums, because of the limits of vNA. If you want to have something that is more efficient, the answer is easy - build a specialized processor, designed to host forums. It won't be able to do anything else, but if will be orders of magnitude more efficient at hosing forums. You have to choose having one computer that is inefficient at many different tasks, or many computers that are efficient at single tasks.