3 ms·

I haven't thought it through, but feedback lets you do a few (perhaps connected?) things: 1. explore a trade-off between gain and bandwidth, 2. Reject disturban

I haven't thought it through, but feedback lets you do a few (perhaps connected?) things: 1. explore a trade-off between gain and bandwidth, 2. Reject disturbances and nonlinearities. So you could have a high gain but "low precision" (in the sense of deviating from an ideal, not in the sense of not being noisy) component, and through feedback you can make a low gain, high precision (having desired properties, not low noise) component.

wfunction 9y ago
You know, I think that might have been what it was -- it was using e.g. 5%-accurate resistors to get a 2%-accurate circuit. Funny enough, that is the difference between accuracy vs. precision, which I thought was irrelevant here. Thanks for pointing that out. :)
nickpsecurity 9y ago
"I haven't thought it through" I don't know the math of such things but did take a stab at it. My idea was doing something similar as we do for high or unlimited precision on digital computers. They usually emulate the higher precision using a series of lower-precision, primitive operations. My thought was that you could probably implement higher precision in analog if you could do a similar emulator with operations acting within the precision common in analog components. All I could guess at, though, since I'm in over my head here. One other thing I always note is the brain seems to be mostly analog. Look what all it can do which includes memory and high-precision math. So, there's almost certainly some tricks we can use to do something similar with analog. Maybe an analog/digital hybrid. The wafer-scale project on NN's shows the potential esp if it was made 3D w/ a cooling system: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.325.4142&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.325...

3 ms·

I haven't thought it through, but feedback lets you do a few (perhaps connected?) things: 1. explore a trade-off between gain and bandwidth, 2. Reject disturban

by gugagore 9y ago

wfunction 9y ago
You know, I think that might have been what it was -- it was using e.g. 5%-accurate resistors to get a 2%-accurate circuit. Funny enough, that is the difference between accuracy vs. precision, which I thought was irrelevant here. Thanks for pointing that out. :)
nickpsecurity 9y ago
"I haven't thought it through" I don't know the math of such things but did take a stab at it. My idea was doing something similar as we do for high or unlimited precision on digital computers. They usually emulate the higher precision using a series of lower-precision, primitive operations. My thought was that you could probably implement higher precision in analog if you could do a similar emulator with operations acting within the precision common in analog components. All I could guess at, though, since I'm in over my head here. One other thing I always note is the brain seems to be mostly analog. Look what all it can do which includes memory and high-precision math. So, there's almost certainly some tricks we can use to do something similar with analog. Maybe an analog/digital hybrid. The wafer-scale project on NN's shows the potential esp if it was made 3D w/ a cooling system: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.325.4142&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.325...