Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch > #108617 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-09-13 20:51 +0100 |
| Last post | 2024-09-18 17:00 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 427 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.arch
Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-13 20:51 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-13 23:18 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-09-14 07:29 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-15 00:06 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-14 22:49 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-15 11:22 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-16 23:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-17 10:57 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-17 19:58 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-18 00:50 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-15 00:42 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-15 03:51 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-17 23:30 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-17 23:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 00:44 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-18 00:57 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 01:27 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-18 13:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-18 14:37 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-18 15:50 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-18 19:00 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-18 19:01 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-18 18:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 08:52 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 08:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 23:51 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-09-20 11:21 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-20 21:32 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-20 14:54 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-20 22:11 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-21 01:12 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-20 18:43 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-21 16:23 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-21 01:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-20 19:28 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-20 19:32 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2024-09-21 14:15 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:26 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2024-09-21 14:16 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-21 16:39 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 13:24 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 02:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 21:12 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-21 13:54 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 13:26 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-21 20:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-21 18:49 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 20:58 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-22 07:44 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 12:07 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 15:37 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 12:55 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-22 21:39 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-22 20:53 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-23 01:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-23 10:53 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-23 21:39 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture BGB-Alt <bohannonindustriesllc@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 16:00 -0500
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 14:32 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-30 03:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-30 05:42 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 11:49 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-30 17:31 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 11:46 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-23 20:59 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 14:35 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-23 21:58 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 15:19 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-23 22:32 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 15:46 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 15:47 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 00:26 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 19:48 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 03:03 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 20:07 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 15:51 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-24 07:50 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 11:56 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-24 14:14 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2024-09-24 15:45 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-03 00:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-10-02 17:58 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-10-03 10:25 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 12:49 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-09-24 11:45 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-10-12 08:27 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-23 11:33 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:25 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:24 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 13:29 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 23:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 02:57 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 02:12 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 10:34 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 00:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 19:44 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:43 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 18:32 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 12:37 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-09-23 16:30 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 00:46 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 23:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-18 15:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-18 15:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-18 19:04 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-18 16:23 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 22:54 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 00:29 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 04:27 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-19 14:23 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 09:01 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-19 09:26 +0200
Perception of lag (Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?) jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-19 09:00 +0100
Re: Perception of lag (Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?) mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 16:12 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 11:10 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-19 12:54 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 23:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-20 09:14 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-20 09:55 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-20 21:33 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 13:19 -0500
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:46 +0000
Local (predictive?) echoing (was: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?) Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-09-20 10:57 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 16:16 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 23:38 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-20 21:06 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-20 20:17 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-20 21:39 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-21 15:39 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-21 22:58 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-21 22:42 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 17:29 -0500
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 22:06 -0500
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 07:18 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-22 12:46 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-22 02:34 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 16:09 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 20:06 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 23:37 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-20 00:58 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-20 04:05 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2024-09-20 06:52 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 02:13 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-22 02:21 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 07:16 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 12:18 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 00:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 12:12 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-20 21:06 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 23:50 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 17:09 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 16:58 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-23 15:06 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-23 21:10 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 00:34 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-23 21:51 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 11:44 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-24 14:18 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 17:50 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-23 22:05 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 11:51 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-29 01:36 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 02:08 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-29 03:41 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 15:21 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 18:26 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 22:57 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 20:20 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-29 23:30 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-09-18 05:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 06:31 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-09-18 20:09 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 23:47 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-19 10:44 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 08:43 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-19 16:25 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-19 19:29 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-19 19:31 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-20 00:15 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-20 05:46 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-20 09:37 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-09-20 11:18 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-20 15:21 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-20 19:10 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 11:56 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-23 11:44 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 01:05 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-24 08:14 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-24 10:56 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-20 14:24 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-22 02:29 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 18:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 01:06 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 03:17 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 20:30 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 20:21 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 20:33 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-25 00:00 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-28 10:36 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-29 13:51 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 10:12 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-28 07:48 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-28 17:41 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2024-09-28 13:16 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-28 19:08 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-29 01:24 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-30 13:23 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-29 01:22 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-28 19:24 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-28 21:50 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-29 13:59 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 14:15 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:59 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:55 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-25 10:43 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-27 18:43 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-27 23:00 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-28 02:47 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-28 10:07 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-28 18:05 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-28 23:15 +0300
Re: physics is hard, was Intel exceptionally John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-09-28 21:16 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-27 21:32 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-28 17:46 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-28 19:01 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-29 14:08 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-29 01:31 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 02:08 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 04:04 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-29 14:13 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-29 14:11 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 18:20 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-29 22:09 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 04:01 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-30 16:35 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 20:13 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-30 03:46 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 04:11 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-30 05:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 19:58 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-01 02:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-01 03:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-01 08:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-01 10:48 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-01 08:57 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-10-01 15:51 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-01 18:20 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-01 20:56 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-01 21:11 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-02 08:50 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-10-01 22:07 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-01 21:09 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-02 09:20 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-02 21:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-03 10:02 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-10-07 12:59 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-08 09:23 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-12 07:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-01 23:33 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-03 00:38 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-03 01:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-03 03:58 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-03 10:23 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-03 19:10 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-04 11:10 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-04 17:59 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-05 11:08 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-05 17:49 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-05 18:24 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-10-06 10:41 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-06 12:47 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-06 23:29 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-10-07 00:39 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-07 01:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-07 11:32 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-07 17:14 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-08 09:17 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-10-06 20:59 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-06 12:07 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-06 01:12 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-06 22:08 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-10-07 09:29 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-07 12:45 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2024-10-07 19:01 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-07 06:37 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-03 19:10 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-03 00:36 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-01 02:39 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:54 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:42 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-20 00:43 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-21 17:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-21 20:30 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 03:20 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 07:30 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 16:42 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-28 02:30 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-28 02:44 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-28 10:28 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-28 07:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 11:48 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-22 12:58 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 14:26 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-22 14:39 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-23 05:44 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-23 19:12 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-23 10:43 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-23 21:13 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-23 15:53 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 01:01 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-22 06:10 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-22 18:59 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-23 10:38 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-23 13:59 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 00:56 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-23 14:24 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-23 12:38 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-23 19:08 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 01:00 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-24 08:17 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-24 17:28 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 18:46 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:51 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 12:14 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-23 05:56 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 07:23 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-22 18:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 00:50 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 00:54 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:49 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 11:35 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-19 12:59 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 16:15 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 16:23 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 20:12 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 20:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 21:35 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 23:43 +0000
Re: quanta vs AI, not Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-09-20 00:59 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 20:53 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-20 01:08 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-20 21:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-20 22:07 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-20 15:33 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:22 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 13:43 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 23:55 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 17:13 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-22 01:29 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 21:01 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 07:31 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-22 13:26 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-22 01:28 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 21:02 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 07:21 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-22 12:41 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-22 13:40 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 12:12 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:20 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Josh Vanderhoof <x@y.z> - 2024-09-20 19:08 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-21 10:40 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 17:08 -0500
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-25 00:08 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 16:18 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 20:15 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-18 02:54 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 00:42 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-09-18 02:41 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 06:45 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-09-18 20:37 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 01:19 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 09:11 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2024-09-19 08:20 -1000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 19:01 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 23:47 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-20 11:02 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-20 14:50 +0300
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-20 15:35 +0300
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-20 15:33 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 23:44 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-20 01:01 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-20 05:53 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:36 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-21 12:19 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-23 10:24 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-23 12:42 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-23 12:32 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-23 16:35 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 00:53 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2024-09-24 03:34 +0100
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 03:05 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-24 10:58 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 17:17 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 20:28 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 11:15 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 14:11 -0700
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 11:00 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 12:17 -0700
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-29 01:33 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-24 17:38 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 18:02 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-25 00:16 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 11:38 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-25 18:23 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 21:39 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-25 19:57 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-25 00:14 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-25 00:12 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2024-11-04 09:43 +0100
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-11-04 15:51 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-20 14:02 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2024-09-20 09:44 -0700
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-20 17:29 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2024-09-20 12:32 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-18 10:41 +0200
Re: Microsoft financials, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-09-18 20:41 +0000
Re: Microsoft financials, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 23:43 +0000
Re: Microsoft financials, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 09:18 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-18 20:57 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 23:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 09:27 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2024-09-17 21:57 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 06:46 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-18 15:51 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-18 16:28 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-18 17:00 +0000
Page 17 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 19 … 22 Next page →
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 08:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vctlhr$33okb$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109130 |
On 24/09/2024 03:00, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 10:38:40 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote: > >> (Among thers, he left out turbulence, where we have some understanding, >> but do not yet understand the Navier-Stokes equations - one of the >> Millenium Problems). > > I thought the problem with Navier-Stokes is that it assumes > infinitesimally-small particles of fluid, whereas we know that real fluids > are made up of atoms and molecules. > > Remember how Max Planck solved the black-body problem? He knew all about > the previous approach of assuming that matter was made up of little > oscillators, and then trying to work out the limiting behaviour as the > size of those oscillators approached zero -- that didn’t work. So his > breakthrough was in assuming that the oscillators did *not* approach zero > in size, but had some minimum nonzero size. Et voilà ... he got a curve > that actually matched the known behaviour of radiating bodies. And laid > one of the foundation stones of quantum theory in the process. > > Seems a similar thing could be done with Navier-Stokes ... ? Without knowing the history of work on Navier-Stokes, I am /reasonably/ confident that mathematicians have thought about this and tried it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 17:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vcusr7$39icl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109150 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> schrieb: > On 24/09/2024 03:00, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 10:38:40 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote: >> >>> (Among thers, he left out turbulence, where we have some understanding, >>> but do not yet understand the Navier-Stokes equations - one of the >>> Millenium Problems). >> >> I thought the problem with Navier-Stokes is that it assumes >> infinitesimally-small particles of fluid, whereas we know that real fluids >> are made up of atoms and molecules. >> >> Remember how Max Planck solved the black-body problem? He knew all about >> the previous approach of assuming that matter was made up of little >> oscillators, and then trying to work out the limiting behaviour as the >> size of those oscillators approached zero -- that didn’t work. So his >> breakthrough was in assuming that the oscillators did *not* approach zero >> in size, but had some minimum nonzero size. Et voilà ... he got a curve >> that actually matched the known behaviour of radiating bodies. And laid >> one of the foundation stones of quantum theory in the process. >> >> Seems a similar thing could be done with Navier-Stokes ... ? > > Without knowing the history of work on Navier-Stokes, I am /reasonably/ > confident that mathematicians have thought about this and tried it. Quite a few decades ago, when I started my PhD, the group met at a pub. Also present was one former PhD student, who had his doctorate but, at the time, no job. When asked what he was doing, he said he currently was a privat scholar. A colleague asked for details, and he said that he was working on the general solution of the Navier-Stokes equation, and that he had tried separation of variables, but it didn't work. We took this as "shut up, I don't want to hear any more questions". Some time later, I tried to explain that to a medical doctor. I told here that it was like claiming he was searching for the cure for cancer, and that he had tried a saline solution, but it didn't work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 18:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <a200bfe85ecdd09bbddb5cfcc16a90aa@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #109171 |
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 17:28:07 +0000, Thomas Koenig wrote: > > Quite a few decades ago, when I started my PhD, the group met > at a pub. Also present was one former PhD student, who had his > doctorate but, at the time, no job. > > When asked what he was doing, he said he currently was a privat > scholar. A colleague asked for details, and he said that he > was working on the general solution of the Navier-Stokes equation, > and that he had tried separation of variables, but it didn't work. > We took this as "shut up, I don't want to hear any more questions". > > Some time later, I tried to explain that to a medical doctor. > I told here that it was like claiming he was searching for the cure for > cancer, and that he had tried a saline solution, but it didn't work. Perhaps the saline was not salty enough.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 23:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vcvjah$3co45$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109171 |
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 17:28:07 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote: > I told here that it was like claiming he was searching for the cure for > cancer, and that he had tried a saline solution, but it didn't work. Fun fact: lots of things kill cancer cells. Apparently even distilled water will work -- in a Petri dish in the lab. Trying to apply that in a human body ... not so much.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 12:14 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20240924121439.00002cc6@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #109130 |
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 01:00:45 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 10:38:40 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote: > > > (Among thers, he left out turbulence, where we have some > > understanding, but do not yet understand the Navier-Stokes > > equations - one of the Millenium Problems). > > I thought the problem with Navier-Stokes is that it assumes > infinitesimally-small particles of fluid, whereas we know that real > fluids are made up of atoms and molecules. > No, the problem (supposing that there is The Problem) is an assumption of incompressibility. For real liquids this assumption is very close to truth, but despite the closeness it sometimes leads to very wrong solutions. > Remember how Max Planck solved the black-body problem? He knew all > about the previous approach of assuming that matter was made up of > little oscillators, and then trying to work out the limiting > behaviour as the size of those oscillators approached zero -- that > didn’t work. So his breakthrough was in assuming that the oscillators > did *not* approach zero in size, but had some minimum nonzero size. > Et voilà ... he got a curve that actually matched the known behaviour > of radiating bodies. And laid one of the foundation stones of quantum > theory in the process. > > Seems a similar thing could be done with Navier-Stokes ... ? Equations of aerodynamics that do not suffer from This Problem, are as well-known as Navier-Stokes itself. But they are more difficult to solve. It's pretty similar to non-relativistic QM vs QED.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-23 05:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86zfny7clg.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #109064 |
mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) writes: > On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 13:10:34 +0000, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >> >>> On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 20:30:40 +0200 >>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>> >>>> Actual physicists know that quantum mechanics is not complete - it is >>>> not a "theory of everything", and does not explain everything. It >>>> is, like Newtonian gravity and general relativity, a simplification >>>> that gives an accurate model of reality within certain limitations, >>>> and hopefully it will one day be superseded by a new theory that >>>> models reality more accurately and over a wider range of >>>> circumstances. That is how science works. >>>> >>>> As things stand today, no such better theory has been developed. >>> >>> Actually, such theory (QED) was proposed by Paul Dirac back in 1920s and >>> further developed by many others bright minds. >>> The trouble with it (according to my not too educated understanding) is >>> that unlike Schrodinger equation, approximate solutions for QED >>> equations can't be calculated numerically by means of Green's function. >>> Because of that QED is rarely used outside of field of high-energy >>> particles and such. >>> >>> But then, I am almost 40 years out of date. Things could have changed. >> >> Quantum electrodynamics, aka QED, is a quantum field theory for the >> electromagnetic force. QED accounts for almost everything we can >> directly see in the world, not counting gravity. >> >> The original QED of Dirac, as expressed in the Dirac equation, has a >> problem: according to that formulation, the self-energy of the >> electron is infinite. To address this deficiency, for about 20 >> years physicists applied a convenient approximation, namely, they >> treated the theoretically infinite quantity as zero. Surprisingly, >> that approximation gave results that agreed with all the experiments >> that were done up until about the mid 1940s. >> >> In the late 1940s, Richard Feynman, Julian Schwinger, and Shinichiro >> Tomonaga independently developed versions of QED that address the >> infinite self-energy problem. (Tomonaga's work was done somewhat >> earlier, but wasn't publicized until later because of the isolation >> of Japan during World War II.) It wasn't at all obvious that the >> QED of Feynman and the QED of Schwinger were equivalent. That they >> were equivalent was established and publicized by Freeman Dyson >> (while he was a graduate student, no less). >> >> The problem of the seeminginly infinite self-energy of the electron >> was addressed by a technique known as renormalization. We could say >> that renormalization is only an approximation: it is known to be >> mathematically unsound, breaking down after a mere 400 or so decimal >> places. Despite that, QED gives numerical results that are correct >> up to the limits of our ability to measure. A computation done >> using QED matched an experimental result to within the tolerance >> of the measurement, which was 13 decimal places. An analogy given >> by Feynman is that this is like measuring the distance from LA to >> New York to an accuracy of the width of one human hair. >> >> QED has implications that are visible in the "normal" world, by >> which I mean using ordinary equipment rather than things like >> synchrotrons and particle accelerators, and that leaves atoms >> intact. Basically all of chemistry depends on QED and not on >> anything more exotic. >> >> There are three fundamental forces other than the electromagnetic >> force, namely, gravity, the weak force, and the strong force. The >> strong force is what holds together the protons and neutrons in the >> nucleus of an atom; it has to be stronger than the electromagnetic >> force so that protons don't just fly away from each other. The weak >> force is related to radioactive decay; it works only over very >> short distances because the carrier particle of the weak force is >> fairly massive (about 80 times the mass of a proton IIRC). For >> comparison the carrier particle of the electromagnetic force is the >> photon, which is massless; that means the electromagnetic force >> operates over arbitrarily large distances (although of course with a >> strength that diminishes as the distance gets larger). >> >> The strong force (sometimes called the color force) is peculiar in >> that the strong force actually *increases* with distance. That >> happens because the carrier particle of the color force has a color >> charge. For comparison photons are electrically neutral. It's >> because of this property that we never see isolated quarks. >> Basically, trying to pull two quarks apart takes so much energy that >> new quarks come into existence out of nothing. > > It does not come out of nothing, it comes out of the energy being > applied to pull the 2 quarks apart. Once the energy gets that big, > it (the energy) condenses into a pair of quarks which then pair up > to prevent the quarks from being seen in isolation. Yes, when I said that the new quarks come into existence out of nothing I meant nothing other than the energy being put in to pull the old quarks apart. >> Quarks come in three >> "colors" (having nothing to do with ordinary color), times three >> families of quarks, times two quarks in each family. The carrier >> particle of the strong force is called a gluon, and there are eight >> different kinds of gluons. (It seems like there should be nine, to >> allow each of the 3x3 possible combinations of colors, but there are >> only eight.) The corresponding theory to QED for the strong force >> is called QCD, for Quantum chromodynamics. >> >> A joke that I like to tell is because the carrier particle for the >> strong force can change a quark from one color to another, rather >> than calling it a gluon it should have been called a crayon. >> >> The field theories for electromagnetism, the strong force, and the >> weak force have been unified in the sense that there is a >> mathematically consistent framework that accommodates all three. >> That unification is only mathematical, by which I mean that there >> are no testable physical implications, only a kind of tautological >> consistency. We can see all three field theories through a common >> mathematical lens, but that doesn't say anything about how the three >> theories interact physically. >> >> The gravitational force is much weaker, by 42 orders of magnitude, >> than the other three fundamental forces. The General Theory of >> Relativity is not a quantized theory. There are ideas about how to >> unify gravity and the other three fundamental forces, but none of >> these "grand unified" theories have any hypotheses that we are able >> to test experimentally. It's unclear how gravity fits in to the >> overall picture. > > Are you not amazed that everything physicists know about the > universe can be written in 13 equations. Not really, no. Most of those equations are a lot more complicated than 1+1=2. It's worth remembering that when Maxwell originally wrote down the equations for electromagnetism there were sixteen equations, not four. It was only after the development of vector notation that the sixteen equations were expressed as only four equations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-22 07:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vcogmf$24e8g$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108988 |
On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 17:40:21 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: > I did not criticize quantum effects, I criticized quantum mechanics > which is dumbshit SWAG that hides the truth of what is happening behind > bullshit. With greater understanding we can come up with classical > explanations ... No we cannot. Some have hypothesized the existence of “hidden variables” which can be used to come up with classical explanations of quantum effects. Bell’s Theorem offered a way to test for those, and the tests (there have been several of them so far, done in several different ways) show that such “hidden variables” cannot exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-22 18:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <71d02763c93b3dbcbf709f24d3a708ce@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #109036 |
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 7:23:59 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 17:40:21 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: > >> I did not criticize quantum effects, I criticized quantum mechanics >> which is dumbshit SWAG that hides the truth of what is happening behind >> bullshit. With greater understanding we can come up with classical >> explanations ... > > No we cannot. Some have hypothesized the existence of “hidden variables” > which can be used to come up with classical explanations of quantum > effects. Bell’s Theorem offered a way to test for those, and the tests > (there have been several of them so far, done in several different ways) > show that such “hidden variables” cannot exist. Do not exist, there remains no evidence that they cannot exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 00:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vct2c7$2tic0$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109063 |
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 18:45:54 +0000, MitchAlsup1 wrote: > On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 7:23:59 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >> Bell’s Theorem offered a way to test for those, and the tests >> (there have been several of them so far, done in several different >> ways) show that such “hidden variables” cannot exist. > > Do not exist, there remains no evidence that they cannot exist. The large collection of tests of Bell’s theorem is that evidence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 00:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <44887f5f01f0a8a149ad7df0eed62d1f@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #109126 |
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 0:50:15 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 18:45:54 +0000, MitchAlsup1 wrote: > >> On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 7:23:59 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>> Bell’s Theorem offered a way to test for those, and the tests >>> (there have been several of them so far, done in several different >>> ways) show that such “hidden variables” cannot exist. >> >> Do not exist, there remains no evidence that they cannot exist. > > The large collection of tests of Bell’s theorem is that evidence. There is still that ~1:peta chance of some phenomena we have not yet measured to upend the inequality. Yes, it is reliably proven (5-6 sigma) but there is still a very tiny chance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 23:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vcvj6g$3co45$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109128 |
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 00:54:54 +0000, MitchAlsup1 wrote: > On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 0:50:15 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 18:45:54 +0000, MitchAlsup1 wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 7:23:59 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>> >>>> Bell’s Theorem offered a way to test for those, and the tests (there >>>> have been several of them so far, done in several different ways) >>>> show that such “hidden variables” cannot exist. >>> >>> Do not exist, there remains no evidence that they cannot exist. >> >> The large collection of tests of Bell’s theorem is that evidence. > > There is still that ~1:peta chance of some phenomena we have not yet > measured to upend the inequality. Sure. Every time somebody does one test, other scientists look at that and say “but what if...”. So someone else thinks up a new test that approaches things from a different direction. That’s how science is done. Let’s just say that so many tests have been done of Bell’s Theorem now, that nobody is likely to build a scientific career out of continuing to question it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-19 11:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vcgr9d$gndp$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108864 |
On 19/09/2024 09:44, Niklas Holsti wrote: > On 2024-09-19 2:47, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 20:09:53 GMT, Anton Ertl wrote: >> >>> He mentioned that several physics breakthroughs >>> are needed for quantum computing to become useful. >> >> The biggest one would be getting around the fundamental problem that you >> can’t get something for nothing. > > > Stupid argument. Look at the effort and tech it takes to make quantum > computers... that is not "nothing". > > >> The promise of an exponential increase in computing power for a linear >> increase in the number of processing elements sounds very much like >> “something for nothing” under another name, wouldn’t you say? > > > No, it is exploiting the very non-intuitive nature of quantum > entanglement to create an exponential number of collective states of a > linear number of elements. Medieval arguments about "nothing" vs > "something" don't work there. > Quantum computing certainly gives you some tricks that are hard to replicate with classical computers. (And of course some quantum effects are impossible to replicate classically, but those are not actually computations.) But it is still ultimately limited in many ways. Landauer's principle about the minimal energy costs of calculations applies equally to quantum calculations. The practical limitations for quantum computers are far more significant. Roughly speaking, when you entangle more states at once, you need tighter tolerances to maintain coherence, which translates to lower temperatures, higher energy costs, and lower times to do your calculations. And to be useful, you need large numbers of qubits, which again makes maintaining coherence increasingly difficult. I'm sure that there will be breakthroughs that improve some of this, but I am not holding my breath - I don't believe quantum computers will ever be cost-effective for anything but a few very niche problems. Currently they have only beat classical computers in tasks that involve simulating some quantum effects. That's a bit like noticing that soap bubble computers are really good at solving 2D minimal energy surface problems. Remember, the current record for Shor's algorithm is factorising 21 into 3 x 7. Factorising 35 is still beyond current engineering levels.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-19 12:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vch06v$hq45$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108869 |
David Brown wrote: > On 19/09/2024 09:44, Niklas Holsti wrote: >> On 2024-09-19 2:47, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 20:09:53 GMT, Anton Ertl wrote: >>> >>>> He mentioned that several physics breakthroughs >>>> are needed for quantum computing to become useful. >>> >>> The biggest one would be getting around the fundamental problem that you >>> can’t get something for nothing. >> >> >> Stupid argument. Look at the effort and tech it takes to make quantum >> computers... that is not "nothing". >> >> >>> The promise of an exponential increase in computing power for a linear >>> increase in the number of processing elements sounds very much like >>> “something for nothing†under another name, wouldn’t you say? >> >> >> No, it is exploiting the very non-intuitive nature of quantum >> entanglement to create an exponential number of collective states of a >> linear number of elements. Medieval arguments about "nothing" vs >> "something" don't work there. >> > > Quantum computing certainly gives you some tricks that are hard to > replicate with classical computers. (And of course some quantum effects > are impossible to replicate classically, but those are not actually > computations.) > > But it is still ultimately limited in many ways. Landauer's principle > about the minimal energy costs of calculations applies equally to > quantum calculations. > > The practical limitations for quantum computers are far more > significant. Roughly speaking, when you entangle more states at once, > you need tighter tolerances to maintain coherence, which translates to > lower temperatures, higher energy costs, and lower times to do your > calculations. And to be useful, you need large numbers of qubits, which > again makes maintaining coherence increasingly difficult. > > I'm sure that there will be breakthroughs that improve some of this, but > I am not holding my breath - I don't believe quantum computers will ever > be cost-effective for anything but a few very niche problems. Currently > they have only beat classical computers in tasks that involve simulating > some quantum effects. That's a bit like noticing that soap bubble > computers are really good at solving 2D minimal energy surface problems. > > Remember, the current record for Shor's algorithm is factorising 21 into > 3 x 7. Factorising 35 is still beyond current engineering levels. > From my recent reading, it seems like factoring 21 (5 bits) requires at least 5+10=15 bits all staying entangled, plus a number of additional bits for error correction. I'm guessing you also need some extra bits/redundancy in order to successfully read out the results? Getting to at the very least 3K entangled bits in order to speed up RSA 1024 decryption will certainly be out of the question for the remainder of my professional career, and most probably also the rest of my life. Terje -- - <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no> "almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-19 16:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vchble$jie1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108871 |
On 19/09/2024 12:59, Terje Mathisen wrote: > David Brown wrote: >> On 19/09/2024 09:44, Niklas Holsti wrote: >>> On 2024-09-19 2:47, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>> On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 20:09:53 GMT, Anton Ertl wrote: >>>> >>>>> He mentioned that several physics breakthroughs >>>>> are needed for quantum computing to become useful. >>>> >>>> The biggest one would be getting around the fundamental problem that >>>> you >>>> can’t get something for nothing. >>> >>> >>> Stupid argument. Look at the effort and tech it takes to make quantum >>> computers... that is not "nothing". >>> >>> >>>> The promise of an exponential increase in computing power for a linear >>>> increase in the number of processing elements sounds very much like >>>> “something for nothing†under another name, wouldn’t you say? >>> >>> >>> No, it is exploiting the very non-intuitive nature of quantum >>> entanglement to create an exponential number of collective states of >>> a linear number of elements. Medieval arguments about "nothing" vs >>> "something" don't work there. >>> >> >> Quantum computing certainly gives you some tricks that are hard to >> replicate with classical computers. (And of course some quantum >> effects are impossible to replicate classically, but those are not >> actually computations.) >> >> But it is still ultimately limited in many ways. Landauer's principle >> about the minimal energy costs of calculations applies equally to >> quantum calculations. >> >> The practical limitations for quantum computers are far more >> significant. Roughly speaking, when you entangle more states at once, >> you need tighter tolerances to maintain coherence, which translates to >> lower temperatures, higher energy costs, and lower times to do your >> calculations. And to be useful, you need large numbers of qubits, >> which again makes maintaining coherence increasingly difficult. >> >> I'm sure that there will be breakthroughs that improve some of this, >> but I am not holding my breath - I don't believe quantum computers >> will ever be cost-effective for anything but a few very niche >> problems. Currently they have only beat classical computers in tasks >> that involve simulating some quantum effects. That's a bit like >> noticing that soap bubble computers are really good at solving 2D >> minimal energy surface problems. >> >> Remember, the current record for Shor's algorithm is factorising 21 >> into 3 x 7. Factorising 35 is still beyond current engineering levels. >> > > From my recent reading, it seems like factoring 21 (5 bits) requires at > least 5+10=15 bits all staying entangled, plus a number of additional > bits for error correction. I'm guessing you also need some extra > bits/redundancy in order to successfully read out the results? This was done with a quantum computer designed specifically for that one task, and simplified with the knowledge of the answer. Even then, these machines just give you a result that /might/ be the correct answer - you have to check it externally to be sure. (Of course for integer factorisation, checking a possible answer is a lot easier than finding plausible answers.) > > Getting to at the very least 3K entangled bits in order to speed up RSA > 1024 decryption will certainly be out of the question for the remainder > of my professional career, and most probably also the rest of my life. > According to someone on the internet (that ever-reliable source of information), an n-bit integer takes 2n + 2 fully entangled qubits and 448.n³.log(n) gates. For 1024-bit RSA, that's 2050 logical qubits and about 5×10e12 gates. For the common default size of 2048-bit RSA, it's 4098 logical qubits and 4.2×10e13 gates. Then you need the quantum error correction in addition. I am not at all convinced that I understand the details here or if I am applying them correctly, but I think that for larger systems you need perhaps 1000 physical qubits per logical qubit. So for your 1024-bit RSA, your need a 2 million qubit monster with all 2000 logical qubits fully entangled (most quantum computers today with more than a few tens of qubits are not fully entangled - 51 fully entangled qubits was the biggest I read about). And you need to keep it coherent for 72n³ cycles - 72 gigacycles - for the algorithm. Top speeds today are 1.4 MHz, with perhaps 4 MHz being practically feasible, assuming only two-qubit gates are needed. That gives 5.4 hours, without considering the extra time delays of the quantum error correction (which I'm sure are very significant). Current coherence time records are measured in microseconds or perhaps milliseconds. (Some other types of quantum computers have longer coherence times, but correspondingly slower cycle speeds.) So using Shor's algorithm to break 1024-bit RSA requires a scaling of 20,000 in qubit counts and 20,000,000 in coherence time and/or cycle speed. Moving to the common high-security size of 4096-bit adds another factor of 64 to each of these, and RSA easily scales much higher than that. I don't believe any of us need to worry about quantum computers breaking RSA for a while yet. (Of course someone might come up with a new algorithm, either classical or quantum, that changes the game.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-19 16:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8dd349cc71da714ade8dbe2c0396f338@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #108873 |
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 14:15:09 +0000, David Brown wrote:
> On 19/09/2024 12:59, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>
> According to someone on the internet (that ever-reliable source of
> information), an n-bit integer takes 2n + 2 fully entangled qubits and
> 448.n³.log(n) gates. For 1024-bit RSA, that's 2050 logical qubits and
> about 5×10e12 gates. For the common default size of 2048-bit RSA,
> it's 4098 logical qubits and 4.2×10e13 gates.
>
> Then you need the quantum error correction in addition. I am not at all
> convinced that I understand the details here or if I am applying them
> correctly, but I think that for larger systems you need perhaps 1000
> physical qubits per logical qubit.
I am convinced that quantum computers will eventually be good at
some things that regular computers are not and cannot be.
I am not convinced that any current application is one of those.
And for the things that quantum computers may be great at
{Deciphering without keys} they may do more harm than good.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-19 20:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vchpj4$lo31$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108882 |
On 19/09/2024 18:23, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 14:15:09 +0000, David Brown wrote:
>
>> On 19/09/2024 12:59, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>
>> According to someone on the internet (that ever-reliable source of
>> information), an n-bit integer takes 2n + 2 fully entangled qubits and
>> 448.n³.log(n) gates. For 1024-bit RSA, that's 2050 logical qubits and
>> about 5×10e12 gates. For the common default size of 2048-bit RSA,
>> it's 4098 logical qubits and 4.2×10e13 gates.
>>
>> Then you need the quantum error correction in addition. I am not at all
>> convinced that I understand the details here or if I am applying them
>> correctly, but I think that for larger systems you need perhaps 1000
>> physical qubits per logical qubit.
>
> I am convinced that quantum computers will eventually be good at
> some things that regular computers are not and cannot be.
>
OK.
They are already good at a few tasks, but they are not particularly
useful ones.
> I am not convinced that any current application is one of those.
>
Agreed, at least as far as we have seen so far with quantum computing.
> And for the things that quantum computers may be great at
> {Deciphering without keys} they may do more harm than good.
I also don't think breaking encryption would be a useful thing. There
may be other good uses of integer factorisation, however.
Still, I don't believe quantum computers will ever actually be any good
for this, unless someone comes up with a far better algorithm. I think
it will always be easier and cheaper to break encryptions using social
engineering, tricks, malware, bribery, blackmail, or - if all else fails
- rubber hose cryptoanalysis.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-19 20:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vci2n6$n38u$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108882 |
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 16:23:09 +0000, MitchAlsup1 wrote: > I am convinced that quantum computers will eventually be good at some > things that regular computers are not and cannot be. They are currently having some success in physical-optimization problems, with precision limits. That means they are basically just a revival of the old analog computers: fast at solving physical-related problems, but with much less precision than digital computers. So far, the progress in making them handle number-theoretic calculations has been essentially zero.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-19 21:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <52a12987878964bbb90270b16f01e8b4@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #108897 |
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 20:48:38 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 16:23:09 +0000, MitchAlsup1 wrote: > >> I am convinced that quantum computers will eventually be good at some >> things that regular computers are not and cannot be. > > They are currently having some success in physical-optimization > problems, > with precision limits. That means they are basically just a revival of > the > old analog computers: fast at solving physical-related problems, but > with > much less precision than digital computers. They seem to be rather exceptional at protein folding compared to classical computing. > So far, the progress in making them handle number-theoretic calculations > has been essentially zero. Getting them to hold a single 10-bit value for 10,000 cycles is <let us say> difficult.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-19 23:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vcicuj$ov66$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108899 |
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 21:35:41 +0000, MitchAlsup1 wrote: > On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 20:48:38 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 16:23:09 +0000, MitchAlsup1 wrote: >> >>> I am convinced that quantum computers will eventually be good at some >>> things that regular computers are not and cannot be. >> >> They are currently having some success in physical-optimization >> problems, with precision limits. That means they are basically just a >> revival of the old analog computers: fast at solving physical-related >> problems, but with much less precision than digital computers. > > They seem to be rather exceptional at protein folding compared to > classical computing. That’s an example of what I what I would call “physical optimization”: the system can “feel” its way down the energy gradient just due to random fluctuations in the state of the physical variables. The algorithms for doing this were called “simulated annealing”, back in the day. Actually nowadays some AI engines (digitally programmed, not quantum) may be beating the quantum computers on protein folding, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-20 00:59 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: quanta vs AI, not Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? |
| Message-ID | <vcihdv$1acu$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #108899 |
According to MitchAlsup1 <mitchalsup@aol.com>: >>> I am convinced that quantum computers will eventually be good at some >>> things that regular computers are not and cannot be. ... >They seem to be rather exceptional at protein folding compared to >classical computing. I think you're confusing them with recent large AI models. They run on normal computers. https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-ai-revolutionized-protein-science-but-didnt-end-it-20240626/ -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 17 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 19 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.arch
csiph-web