4 ms·

However this work doesn't say anything about how revolutionary for our ordinary use cases some device based on something commonly called memristors could be. L

by acqq 8y ago

However this work doesn't say anything about how revolutionary for our ordinary use cases some device based on something commonly called memristors could be. Like iPhone: it is not "fundamental" in any sense, but one can really see the difference "before and after." The mobile phones existed before, but the way people use them hugely changed. Another problem is that we read for years how memristors will be revolutionary, but then just some time passes and we read it again... I haven't researched the background to that, maybe somebody here has some insider info?

foobar1962 8y ago
The article is about whether, using your example, to add iPhone to the Periodic Table of Elements. They may be useful but they aren’t a fundamental element.
ndesaulniers 8y ago
Memristors are fundamental in that they relate charge w/ flux. Capacitors relate charge to voltage. q = Cv Resistors relate voltage to current. v = Ri Inductors relate current to flux. theta = Li Before memristors, nothing related charge to flux. theta = Mq (also, voltage is the derivative of flux over time, and current is the derivative of charge over time, which makes a nice symmetry that memristors complete) (skimmed the article briefly, seems like they're arguing that memristors are not fundamental because hysteresis is a non-linear relationship? Can I get a TL;DR HN?)
- neltnerb 8y ago
  More that it requires active and time dependent history to know the state of the device, making it not fundamental in the sense that the resistance doesn't depend on history. It's a fair point I'd say, and they're clear that this isn't something that diminishes utility of any practical device. Just that it isn't fundamental. This seems clear if you define fundamental things as not requiring history or energy to be defined. If you don't define it that way I'm sure you can come to a different conclusion.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- tiglionabbit 8y ago
  I only understand your comment enough to reformat it and discover the symmetry you're describing. capacitors: charge to (flux/time)' resistors: (charge/time)' to (flux/time)' inductors: (charge/time)' to flux memristors: charge to flux It's every combination of charge or the derivative of charge over time with flux or the derivative of flux over time.
  - FakeComments 8y ago
    For people like me who are slow: cap - res f/t | | chg c/t mem - ind flx Squares are neat. (Not my area of knowledge; have no real clue. Hoping someone comes along and explains further.)
- 6nf 8y ago
  The article's argument is that those are not the right dimensions to look at. The way to look at fundamental electronic components is as charge and the derivatives with regard to time: 1/C * q = v (Capacitors relate charge to voltage) R * q' = v (Resistors relate the rate of charge to voltage) L * q" = v (Inductors relate the rate of rate of charge to voltage) There's no room in this view for the memristor
hjklklklkl 8y ago
"fundamental" refers to mathematical symmetry. Your comparison between a passive circuit element and a consumer product strikes me as bizarre.
- acqq 8y ago
  It's a context that matters. I actually haven't compared "a passive circuit element" to an iPhone. I answered to the following (one level above): "I've saved it in my notebook for forward to folks who go on and on about how revolutionary they are." My claim is that iPhone was "revolutionary" even if "it is not 'fundamental' in any sense." Moreover, just "a passive circuit element" that you used is surely way too simple to be used to describe a memristor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor Also: https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7319 https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7319 The way I read it, a resistor is still the only "real" passive circuit element. My view of a "memristor" was always more as a "marketing name." As here: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328535-200-online-spat-over-who-joins-memristor-club/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328535-200-online-s... Which doesn't mean something marketed as them won't be useful. But, as I've also said, up to now, year after year the announcements happened, the time passed... Still, I know nobody would care "if it's fundamental or not" if it would allow us to do the things we couldn't before.

by acqq 8y ago

foobar1962 8y ago

The article is about whether, using your example, to add iPhone to the Periodic Table of Elements. They may be useful but they aren’t a fundamental element.

ndesaulniers 8y ago

Memristors are fundamental in that they relate charge w/ flux. Capacitors relate charge to voltage. q = Cv Resistors relate voltage to current. v = Ri Inductors relate current to flux. theta = Li Before memristors, nothing related charge to flux. theta = Mq (also, voltage is the derivative of flux over time, and current is the derivative of charge over time, which makes a nice symmetry that memristors complete) (skimmed the article briefly, seems like they're arguing that memristors are not fundamental because hysteresis is a non-linear relationship? Can I get a TL;DR HN?)

neltnerb 8y ago
More that it requires active and time dependent history to know the state of the device, making it not fundamental in the sense that the resistance doesn't depend on history. It's a fair point I'd say, and they're clear that this isn't something that diminishes utility of any practical device. Just that it isn't fundamental. This seems clear if you define fundamental things as not requiring history or energy to be defined. If you don't define it that way I'm sure you can come to a different conclusion.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
tiglionabbit 8y ago
I only understand your comment enough to reformat it and discover the symmetry you're describing. capacitors: charge to (flux/time)' resistors: (charge/time)' to (flux/time)' inductors: (charge/time)' to flux memristors: charge to flux It's every combination of charge or the derivative of charge over time with flux or the derivative of flux over time.
- FakeComments 8y ago
  For people like me who are slow: cap - res f/t | | chg c/t mem - ind flx Squares are neat. (Not my area of knowledge; have no real clue. Hoping someone comes along and explains further.)
6nf 8y ago
The article's argument is that those are not the right dimensions to look at. The way to look at fundamental electronic components is as charge and the derivatives with regard to time: 1/C * q = v (Capacitors relate charge to voltage) R * q' = v (Resistors relate the rate of charge to voltage) L * q" = v (Inductors relate the rate of rate of charge to voltage) There's no room in this view for the memristor

hjklklklkl 8y ago

"fundamental" refers to mathematical symmetry. Your comparison between a passive circuit element and a consumer product strikes me as bizarre.

acqq 8y ago
It's a context that matters. I actually haven't compared "a passive circuit element" to an iPhone. I answered to the following (one level above): "I've saved it in my notebook for forward to folks who go on and on about how revolutionary they are." My claim is that iPhone was "revolutionary" even if "it is not 'fundamental' in any sense." Moreover, just "a passive circuit element" that you used is surely way too simple to be used to describe a memristor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor Also: https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7319 https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7319 The way I read it, a resistor is still the only "real" passive circuit element. My view of a "memristor" was always more as a "marketing name." As here: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328535-200-online-spat-over-who-joins-memristor-club/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328535-200-online-s... Which doesn't mean something marketed as them won't be useful. But, as I've also said, up to now, year after year the announcements happened, the time passed... Still, I know nobody would care "if it's fundamental or not" if it would allow us to do the things we couldn't before.