4 ms·

Yeah, I'm really lost. I feel like someone described useful properties of A Thing if it existed. Then we figured out how to make A Thing that had those useful

Yeah, I'm really lost. I feel like someone described useful properties of A Thing if it existed. Then we figured out how to make A Thing that had those useful properties. Is it A Thing, or Two Things? That's pedantic. Pragmatically, don't we have the useful properties?

cptaj 8y ago
Don't be too quick to call academics pedantic. You're probably missing some key facts of the argument that make the distinction relevant.
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  I agree with this. That said, the Wikipedia article has something interesting to point out regarding this [1]: > Martin Reynolds, an electrical engineering analyst with research outfit Gartner, commented that while HP was being sloppy in calling their device a memristor, critics were being pedantic in saying that it was not a memristor. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor#Memristor_definition_and_criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor#Memristor_definition...
mehrdadn 8y ago
> I feel like someone described useful properties of A Thing if it existed. Then we figured out how to make A Thing that had those useful properties. Apparently that's not quite the situation. I'd read the Wikipedia article. It says the following (keyword: "contrary"): > Experimental evidence shows that redox-based resistance memory (ReRAM) includes a nanobattery effect that is contrary to Chua's memristor model. This indicates that the memristor theory needs to be extended or corrected to enable accurate ReRAM modeling. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor#Memristor_definition_and_criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor#Memristor_definition...
- VikingCoder 8y ago
  From an academic standpoint, this is all interesting. From a pragmatic standpoint, they made a thing. And it sounds like the theory they based it on is not as sound as they thought. But they MADE the thing. I think I would have appreciated a title more like, "Memristor - the devices are cool, but the theory was flawed." Rather than implying that the devices themselves are fictional.
  - mehrdadn 8y ago
    Theory predicted A, practice made B. Nobody is contesting whether B was made or implying B is fictional. Everyone can see B exists. The debate is whether the claim that B = A is correct, i.e. whether A is fictional or whether A has been found or whether we should keep looking. If all you care about is the present then that's your prerogative, but the people making this stuff you use need to know when they need to stop vs. keep digging for you.
    - VikingCoder 8y ago
      "Memristor – The fictional circuit element" implies B does not exist. It's a lousy title. Perhaps "Memristor - An interesting device based on a flawed theory" would have been better. The debate I'm having is whether the language used was inappropriate, i.e. whether the best words were used or if we should keep looking for better words. If all they care about is clicks then that's their prerogative, but the people reading these words need to know what they're supposed to mean. Because "fictional" has a specific meaning, and this isn't it.
      - mehrdadn 8y ago
        > "Memristor – The fictional circuit element" implies B does not exist. It's a lousy title. No, it implies A does not exist, not B. Memristor = A. The term existed before HP's B came along. Whether or not you believe A = B, somehow I think you're smart enough to realize that nobody is claiming B—which everyone can see with their own eyes—does not exist, and yet that's what you're still arguing.
YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
Well, in that case was the Mechanical Turk a machine that played chess? I mean, it was a machine and it did play chess. There was a person inside it that actually did all the work, but does that make it not a machine that played chess? We could debate the meaning of "plays" until the cows come home and perhaps arguing that the machine should be able to play chess on its own, or that it doesn't because one component of it is a human being that also functions independently to the machine is pedantic. But perhaps it is productive after all, to challenge and analyse claims regarding the nature of things people make. If I understand this memristor paper correctly, the whole issue seems to be that what is supposed to be a new kind of Thing, that didn't exist before, is actually made up of already existing Things with well-understood properties in one possible configuration that doesn't do anything radically new, that other configurations can't already do anyway. So in other ways- we have the useful properties but a) we always had them and b) there's no new Thing.
- VikingCoder 8y ago
  We did not always have what HP created. It's not a trick, it just doesn't work on the underlying mechanism we thought it did. The new configuration is itself radically new. The Mechanical Turk was a trick, designed to deceive. It's a very unfair comparison.

cptaj 8y ago

Don't be too quick to call academics pedantic. You're probably missing some key facts of the argument that make the distinction relevant.

mehrdadn 8y ago
I agree with this. That said, the Wikipedia article has something interesting to point out regarding this [1]: > Martin Reynolds, an electrical engineering analyst with research outfit Gartner, commented that while HP was being sloppy in calling their device a memristor, critics were being pedantic in saying that it was not a memristor. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor#Memristor_definition_and_criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor#Memristor_definition...

mehrdadn 8y ago

> I feel like someone described useful properties of A Thing if it existed. Then we figured out how to make A Thing that had those useful properties. Apparently that's not quite the situation. I'd read the Wikipedia article. It says the following (keyword: "contrary"): > Experimental evidence shows that redox-based resistance memory (ReRAM) includes a nanobattery effect that is contrary to Chua's memristor model. This indicates that the memristor theory needs to be extended or corrected to enable accurate ReRAM modeling. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor#Memristor_definition_and_criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor#Memristor_definition...

VikingCoder 8y ago
From an academic standpoint, this is all interesting. From a pragmatic standpoint, they made a thing. And it sounds like the theory they based it on is not as sound as they thought. But they MADE the thing. I think I would have appreciated a title more like, "Memristor - the devices are cool, but the theory was flawed." Rather than implying that the devices themselves are fictional.
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  Theory predicted A, practice made B. Nobody is contesting whether B was made or implying B is fictional. Everyone can see B exists. The debate is whether the claim that B = A is correct, i.e. whether A is fictional or whether A has been found or whether we should keep looking. If all you care about is the present then that's your prerogative, but the people making this stuff you use need to know when they need to stop vs. keep digging for you.
  - VikingCoder 8y ago
    "Memristor – The fictional circuit element" implies B does not exist. It's a lousy title. Perhaps "Memristor - An interesting device based on a flawed theory" would have been better. The debate I'm having is whether the language used was inappropriate, i.e. whether the best words were used or if we should keep looking for better words. If all they care about is clicks then that's their prerogative, but the people reading these words need to know what they're supposed to mean. Because "fictional" has a specific meaning, and this isn't it.
    - mehrdadn 8y ago
      > "Memristor – The fictional circuit element" implies B does not exist. It's a lousy title. No, it implies A does not exist, not B. Memristor = A. The term existed before HP's B came along. Whether or not you believe A = B, somehow I think you're smart enough to realize that nobody is claiming B—which everyone can see with their own eyes—does not exist, and yet that's what you're still arguing.

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago

Well, in that case was the Mechanical Turk a machine that played chess? I mean, it was a machine and it did play chess. There was a person inside it that actually did all the work, but does that make it not a machine that played chess? We could debate the meaning of "plays" until the cows come home and perhaps arguing that the machine should be able to play chess on its own, or that it doesn't because one component of it is a human being that also functions independently to the machine is pedantic. But perhaps it is productive after all, to challenge and analyse claims regarding the nature of things people make. If I understand this memristor paper correctly, the whole issue seems to be that what is supposed to be a new kind of Thing, that didn't exist before, is actually made up of already existing Things with well-understood properties in one possible configuration that doesn't do anything radically new, that other configurations can't already do anyway. So in other ways- we have the useful properties but a) we always had them and b) there's no new Thing.

VikingCoder 8y ago
We did not always have what HP created. It's not a trick, it just doesn't work on the underlying mechanism we thought it did. The new configuration is itself radically new. The Mechanical Turk was a trick, designed to deceive. It's a very unfair comparison.