4 ms·
> how would we move past those? We did. It just turns out digital > mechanical. Thanks to Shannon and many others, we figured out we should 'pack more' into
by supernice_storm 8y ago
> how would we move past those?
We did.
It just turns out digital > mechanical.
Thanks to Shannon and many others, we figured out we should 'pack more' into tinier spaces (circuits [0]), using less symbols (binary [1]).
Another such leap would require moving past current limits of physics understanding.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor#Comparison_with_vacuum_tubes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor#Comparison_with_vac...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69-YUSazuic&list=PLbg3ZX2pWlgKDVFNwn9B63UhYJVIerzHL&index=1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69-YUSazuic&list=PLbg3ZX2pWl...
- sbr464 8y agoThat’s my precise question, does digital === electronic? If true, how do Claude Shannon’s (numerous) contributions become relevant in the absence of electricity?
- supernice_storm 8y ago>does digital === electronic? I had never thought about that. But someone has: https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-electronic-and-digital https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-electroni... >relevant in the absence of electricity? Theory is independent from practice or implementation. A logic gate is a logic gate whether you model it with wires, water channels, or whatever else. Regardless of perceived 'relevance': >The value of knowledge is not statically predefined
- sbr464 8y agoThanks for that link