5 ms·
Uh huh. \derisive I think this all comes down to the claim that their "memcomputing" architecture allows you to put exponential amounts of data into a polynomi
by Strilanc 12y ago
Uh huh. \derisive
I think this all comes down to the claim that their "memcomputing" architecture allows you to put exponential amounts of data into a polynomial number of things. My best guess for where they went wrong is something like measuring an exponentially small voltage difference.
A good rule of thumb: if a proposed thing violates well-known bounds, like say the Bekenstein bound [1], and the authors don't mention this at all, that is not a good sign.
The paper would probably be fine if they took out everything implying that UMMs can be physically instantiated, but I dunno.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound
- phkahler 12y agoYup. There is nothing there in terms of hardware that can't be simulated on a regular computer in polynomial time.
- JacobEdelman 12y agoThe Exponential Information Overhead can't be simulated in poly time.
- phkahler 12y agoNor can it be handled by a physical device.
- JacobEdelman 12y agoTo me it looks like they have exponential growth in the number of connections between the memory elements. This would account for having exponential storage while still not violating any physical principles (also, it would not be nearly as useful as they imply).
- lomnakkus 12y agoThat would violate a physical principle (The Holographic Principle[1]), namely that the amount of information in any given volume of space is limited by the volume's surface area. At some point an exponentially growing number of connections is going to overtake the surface area of the volume of space occupied by the supposed physical device. [1] I understand that this is largely theoretical, but it seems to be pretty much accepted by the Physics community AFAICT.