Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #667597 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-11-30 13:38 +0100 |
| Last post | 2025-12-04 12:59 +0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 184 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Could AlphaEvolve find the sixth busy beaver ? Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-30 13:38 +0100
An old Busy Beaver ASIC (Application-Specific Integrated Circuit) (Was: Could AlphaEvolve find the sixth busy beaver ?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-30 13:54 +0100
An old Busy Beaver ASIC (Application-Specific Integrated Circuit) (Was: Could AlphaEvolve find the sixth busy beaver ?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-30 13:55 +0100
What is analog computing nowadays? (Re: An old Busy Beaver ASIC (Application-Specific Integrated Circuit) (Was: Could AlphaEvolve find the sixth busy beaver ?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-01 11:25 +0100
Wake-up call until everybody gets ear-bleeding (Re: What is analog computing nowadays?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-01 12:01 +0100
BB(745) is independent of ZFC (Was: Wake-up call until everybody gets ear-bleeding) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-01 12:07 +0100
Write ZFC formulas on a tape (of a Turing machine) (Re: BB(745) is independent of ZFC ) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-02 17:18 +0100
Turing machines have neurons (Re: Write ZFC formulas on a tape (of a Turing machine)) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-02 17:19 +0100
A logical calculus in nervous activity [McCulloch & Pitts 1943] (Re: Turing machines have neurons) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-02 17:20 +0100
Busy Beaver and Theory Consistency (Was: A logical calculus in nervous activity [McCulloch & Pitts 1943]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-02 17:39 +0100
Busy Beaver and Theory Consistency (Was: A logical calculus in nervous activity [McCulloch & Pitts 1943]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-02 17:43 +0100
Re: Busy Beaver and Theory Consistency (Was: A logical calculus in nervous activity [McCulloch & Pitts 1943]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-02 23:18 +0100
Re: What is analog computing nowadays? (Re: An old Busy Beaver ASIC (Application-Specific Integrated Circuit) (Was: Could AlphaEvolve find the sixth busy beaver ?) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-12-01 12:09 +0100
parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM (Was: What is analog computing nowadays?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-01 12:15 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM (Was: What is analog computing nowadays?) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-12-01 13:23 +0100
Nope, you can't, because of the CRCW instuction (Was: parallel random-access machine) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-01 17:12 +0100
Algorithm introduced in Hogwild! SGD (Niu et al., 2011) (Was: Nope, you can't, because of the CRCW instuction) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-01 17:31 +0100
PRAMs might be closer to physics: Boltzman machines, etc.. (Was: Algorithm introduced in Hogwild! SGD) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-01 18:02 +0100
Re: Nope, you can't, because of the CRCW instuction (Was: parallel random-access machine) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-12-01 17:59 +0100
PRAMs might be closer to physics: Boltzman machines, etc.. (Re: Nope, you can't, because of the CRCW instuction) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-01 18:05 +0100
PRAMs might be closer to physics: Boltzman machines, etc.. (Re: Nope, you can't, because of the CRCW instuction) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-01 18:08 +0100
Physics more difficult than Rasperry LED cube? (Was: PRAMs might be closer to physics: Boltzman machines, etc..) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-01 18:25 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM (Was: What is analog computing nowadays?) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-03 07:17 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM (Was: What is analog computing nowadays?) Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-03 06:46 +0000
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-03 08:02 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-04 07:50 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-04 09:57 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Telly Missiakos <siy@ioet.gr> - 2025-12-05 14:26 +0000
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-06 17:02 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-07 10:22 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-07 10:39 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-07 10:46 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-07 11:42 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-07 16:26 +0200
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-08 04:25 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-08 08:51 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-08 13:58 +0200
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-09 09:15 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-08 08:21 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-08 09:06 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-09 09:19 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-09 11:43 -0800
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-10 08:19 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-10 09:56 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-10 10:01 -0800
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-11 09:02 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-11 08:48 -0800
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-12 01:58 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-11 20:45 -0800
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-11 23:07 -0800
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-12 00:49 -0800
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-12-14 14:27 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Yunior Molokanov <ukan@amuyao.ru> - 2025-12-14 17:18 +0000
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-14 10:03 -0800
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Salvado Gorbikov <abdrvvg@lgadi.ru> - 2025-12-15 22:01 +0000
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-14 10:25 -0800
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-12-14 21:22 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-14 12:52 -0800
I have a great idea The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-14 13:11 -0800
Einstein refrigerator (was: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-15 03:00 +0100
Re: Einstein refrigerator (was: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-14 19:46 -0800
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-14 10:27 -0800
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-14 10:58 -0800
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-15 07:50 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-12-15 14:05 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-16 08:44 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-12-16 22:58 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-17 08:50 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-12-17 14:00 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Lemuel Agababov <uamv@oaabao.ru> - 2025-12-17 16:58 +0000
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-17 18:33 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Eniel Habalov <ia@anael.ru> - 2025-12-18 16:22 +0000
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-17 10:49 -0800
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-17 11:23 -0800
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-12-17 14:24 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-18 22:13 -0800
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-19 12:02 -0800
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Lynn Dobronos <rlbs@ddn.ru> - 2025-12-17 16:51 +0000
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-17 18:24 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-18 06:49 +0000
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-06 05:30 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM (Was: What is analog computing nowadays?) Pascual Sokolsky <aoa@ssppsc.pl> - 2025-12-01 19:58 +0000
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM (Was: What is analog computing nowadays?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-01 21:17 +0100
Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM (Was: What is analog computing nowadays?) Blending Molostvov <noo@biiooe.ru> - 2025-12-01 20:44 +0000
Algorithm introduced in Hogwild! SGD (Niu et al., 2011) (Re: parallel random-access machine) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-01 22:06 +0100
Linux kernel's RCU-protected hash tables (Re: Algorithm introduced in Hogwild! SGD (Niu et al., 2011)) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-01 22:26 +0100
String interning is HashSet and not HashMap (Was: Linux kernel's RCU-protected hash tables) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-01 22:40 +0100
Re: Algorithm introduced in Hogwild! SGD (Niu et al., 2011) (Re: parallel random-access machine) Bosephis Otlesnov <ooiv@th.ru> - 2025-12-01 21:42 +0000
POINT OF VIEW OF AN ALGORITHM (Re: Algorithm introduced in Hogwild! SGD (Niu et al., 2011)) (Re: parallel random-access machine) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-01 23:12 +0100
Introduction to AMBA® 4 ACE™ (2011) (Was: POINT OF VIEW OF AN ALGORITHM) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-01 23:37 +0100
Sputnik Schock: Academia is Disposable [I. J. Good Ultraintelligence] (Was: Introduction to AMBA® 4 ACE™ (2011)) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-01 23:53 +0100
Re: Introduction to AMBA® 4 ACE™ (2011) (Was: POINT OF VIEW OF AN ALGORITHM) Josbanne Balagula <ajbn@oll.ru> - 2025-12-01 23:06 +0000
Re: Introduction to AMBA® 4 ACE™ (2011) (Was: POINT OF VIEW OF AN ALGORITHM) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-02 00:08 +0100
Re: Could AlphaEvolve find the sixth busy beaver ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-11-30 14:06 +0100
Re: Could AlphaEvolve find the sixth busy beaver ? Dong Shamahov <hhh@dvgshv.ru> - 2025-11-30 15:46 +0000
You shouldn't use NPM hacked services (Was: Could AlphaEvolve find the sixth busy beaver ?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-30 22:27 +0100
Its a subconscious hypothesis (Was: You shouldn't use NPM hacked services) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-30 22:33 +0100
What if of the cosmos does a BB dance? (Was: Its a subconscious hypothesis) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-30 22:43 +0100
Re: What if of the cosmos does a BB dance? (Was: Its a subconscious hypothesis) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-01 23:43 +0100
Re: What if of the cosmos does a BB dance? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-01 23:45 +0100
newsreader where you can see the message source (Was: What if of the cosmos does a BB dance?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-02 00:00 +0100
Re: newsreader where you can see the message source (Was: What if of the cosmos does a BB dance?) Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-02 03:10 +0000
Re: newsreader where you can see the message source (Was: What if of the cosmos does a BB dance?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-02 11:51 +0100
Re: newsreader where you can see the message source (Was: What if of the cosmos does a BB dance?) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-02 20:36 +0100
Re: newsreader where you can see the message source (Was: What if of the cosmos does a BB dance?) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 21:42 -0800
Orbits of planets in the Sol System (was: newsreader where you can see the message source) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-04 03:29 +0100
Orbits of planets in the Sol System Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-04 03:30 +0100
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 14:56 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 15:22 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-06 15:00 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-07 10:57 +0100
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-07 11:03 +0100
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-12-07 16:17 +0100
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 17:59 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 18:07 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 18:16 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-07 21:39 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-08 12:14 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 12:41 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:11 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-09 04:49 +0100
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-08 17:33 +0100
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-12-08 18:39 +0100
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 12:29 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-09 04:41 +0100
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 21:41 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-09 11:56 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 12:15 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-09 23:35 +0100
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-10 02:17 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-10 12:01 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-10 13:25 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-09 05:45 +0100
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-09 05:47 +0100
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-12-09 06:47 +0100
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 11:50 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-09 23:47 +0100
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-10 02:01 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-11 03:20 +0100
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-11 10:29 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-12 09:04 +0100
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-12 01:20 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-12 10:20 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-13 17:46 +0100
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-13 11:44 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-13 23:26 +0100
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-13 15:28 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-15 03:52 +0100
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-14 22:35 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-14 22:45 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-17 18:52 +0100
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-17 17:39 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-18 04:23 +0100
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-18 02:29 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-14 23:01 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-13 23:27 +0100
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Jonas Zhashkov <snos@kook.ru> - 2025-12-09 19:35 +0000
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-09 23:44 +0100
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System "D.J. Papadopulos" <sn@sppodd.gr> - 2025-12-10 15:34 +0000
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-11 03:29 +0100
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System Erwin Shimanouchi <sicor@rinn.jp> - 2025-12-11 21:04 +0000
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-06 14:57 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-07 12:36 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-07 12:36 -0800
Re: Orbits of planets in the Sol System The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-07 12:42 -0800
Re: newsreader where you can see the message source (Was: What if of the cosmos does a BB dance?) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-02 20:35 +0100
Spock thinks I am interested in his gibberish (Re: newsreader where you can see the message source) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-02 23:22 +0100
Is it like "Wirres Mückengelaber" ? (Was: Spock thinks I am interested in his gibberish) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-02 23:28 +0100
Re: What if of the cosmos does a BB dance? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-03 07:22 +0100
Re: What if of the cosmos does a BB dance? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-03 08:27 -0800
Re: What if of the cosmos does a BB dance? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-04 07:57 +0100
Re: Its a subconscious hypothesis (Was: You shouldn't use NPM hacked services) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-11-30 23:14 +0100
Re: You shouldn't use NPM hacked services (Was: Could AlphaEvolve find the sixth busy beaver ?) Sebastian Zolotdinov <eso@iz.ru> - 2025-11-30 23:42 +0000
Putin payed trolls are usually name shifters [ethernal september morons] (Was: You shouldn't use NPM hacked services) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-01 11:19 +0100
Re: You shouldn't use NPM hacked services (Was: Could AlphaEvolve find the sixth busy beaver ?) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-01 23:23 +0100
Re: You shouldn't use NPM hacked services (Was: Could AlphaEvolve find the sixth busy beaver ?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-02 00:05 +0100
Re: You shouldn't use NPM hacked services Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-02 20:29 +0100
Spock thinks I am interested in his gibberish (Re: You shouldn't use NPM hacked services) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-02 23:25 +0100
Is it like "Wirres Mückengelaber" ? (Was: Spock thinks I am interested in his gibberish) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-02 23:29 +0100
What Spock aka Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn missed (Was: Different Hubble Theories: de Sitter Energy) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-03 01:09 +0100
The size of a Gödel sentence G (Re: Could AlphaEvolve find the sixth busy beaver ?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-03 09:00 +0100
The size of a Gödel sentence G (Re: Could AlphaEvolve find the sixth busy beaver ?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-03 09:00 +0100
Attacking the Busy Beaver 5 [1989] (Re: The size of a Gödel sentence G) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-12-03 09:10 +0100
Re: Could AlphaEvolve find the sixth busy beaver ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2025-12-04 12:59 +0800
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
| From | Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-01 18:08 +0100 |
| Subject | PRAMs might be closer to physics: Boltzman machines, etc.. (Re: Nope, you can't, because of the CRCW instuction) |
| Message-ID | <10gki26$vgqb$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #667619 |
Hi, The bottom line is often, PRAMs might be closer to physics. Especially for certain machine learning algorithms or questions from modelling perception or action. You might get better results if you model the problem in terms of Boltzman machines, or whatever from the arsenal of physics. Bye P.S.: Whats was a little popular for a certain moment of time, was also the idea of partical swarm optimization, for machine learning or for problem solving: Particle swarm optimization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_swarm_optimization Not sure how much of it got supperseeded, it mostlikey survides in AlphaEvolve by Google, looks like a genetic algorithm thing, which is another name for this "physics". Maciej Woźniak schrieb: > On 12/1/2025 5:12 PM, Mild Shock wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Simulation is not so easy. > > I've never said it is easy. Some randomness > or pseudorandomness existed for a long time, > it's not enough for me to speak about a > different architecture. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-01 18:25 +0100 |
| Subject | Physics more difficult than Rasperry LED cube? (Was: PRAMs might be closer to physics: Boltzman machines, etc..) |
| Message-ID | <10gkj2a$vhp4$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #667622 |
Hi, But the topic of physics could be much more difficult to discuss, then the topic of von Neumann machines, like building your obligatory hobby LED cube with a Rasperry Pi von Neuman style with one thread. So I basically intend not to respond anymore, to this silly thread, since I was flamed for these things being off topic to physics. Already just few months ago these AI pioneers got physics nobel prices: Why did they get Physics Nobel prices? John J. Hopfield Geoffrey Hinton https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2024/summary/ They both worked in neural networks: The Nobel Prize in Physics 2024 was awarded jointly to John J. Hopfield and Geoffrey Hinton "for foundational discoveries and inventions that enable machine learning with artificial neural networks" Bye P.S.: Not to mention from Google DeepMind: Demis Hassabis https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2024/press-release/ Its also a premier of artificial intelligence nobel: Demis Hassabis and John Jumper have developed an AI model to solve a 50-year-old problem: predicting proteins’ complex structures. These discoveries hold enormous potential. Mild Shock schrieb: > Hi, > > The bottom line is often, PRAMs might be > closer to physics. Especially for certain > machine learning algorithms or questions > > from modelling perception or action. You > might get better results if you model the > problem in terms of Boltzman machines, > > or whatever from the arsenal of physics. > > Bye > > P.S.: Whats was a little popular for a certain > moment of time, was also the idea of partical > swarm optimization, for machine learning or > > for problem solving: > > Particle swarm optimization > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_swarm_optimization > > Not sure how much of it got supperseeded, > it mostlikey survides in AlphaEvolve by Google, > looks like a genetic algorithm thing, which > > is another name for this "physics". > > Maciej Woźniak schrieb: >> On 12/1/2025 5:12 PM, Mild Shock wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Simulation is not so easy. >> >> I've never said it is easy. Some randomness >> or pseudorandomness existed for a long time, >> it's not enough for me to speak about a >> different architecture. >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-03 07:17 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM (Was: What is analog computing nowadays?) |
| Message-ID | <mpa2k1FhnntU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #667616 |
Am Montag000001, 01.12.2025 um 13:23 schrieb Maciej Woźniak: > On 12/1/2025 12:15 PM, Mild Shock wrote: >> Hi, >> >> You wrote: >> >> > No, they don't, they just add one (or some) >> > more layer on top of it. >> >> Techically they are not von Neuman architecture. >> Unified Memory with Multiple Tensor Cores is >> not von Neuman architecture. > > We can use von Neumann architecture > to emulate other architectures, but as long as it > is performed by our computers it is technically > von Neumann's. > Did you know, that 'von Neuman architecture' was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the early 1930th? The liberators stole it from Zuse (like zillions of other patents from other German inventors). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-03 06:46 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM (Was: What is analog computing nowadays?) |
| Message-ID | <BqD5mSex_IIvGNMFDdn3zINsmkE@jntp> |
| In reply to | #667666 |
Le 03/12/2025 à 07:11, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Montag000001, 01.12.2025 um 13:23 schrieb Maciej Woźniak: >> On 12/1/2025 12:15 PM, Mild Shock wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> You wrote: >>> >>> > No, they don't, they just add one (or some) >>> > more layer on top of it. >>> >>> Techically they are not von Neuman architecture. >>> Unified Memory with Multiple Tensor Cores is >>> not von Neuman architecture. >> >> We can use von Neumann architecture >> to emulate other architectures, but as long as it >> is performed by our computers it is technically >> von Neumann's. >> > Did you know, that 'von Neuman architecture' was actually invented and > patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the early 1930th? > > The liberators stole it from Zuse (like zillions of other patents from > other German inventors). In this specific case: this is completely WRONG.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-03 08:02 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) |
| Message-ID | <10gon9o$2jg1p$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #667666 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Montag000001, 01.12.2025 um 13:23 schrieb Maciej Woźniak: >> On 12/1/2025 12:15 PM, Mild Shock wrote: >>> You wrote: >>> >>> > No, they don't, they just add one (or some) >>> > more layer on top of it. >>> >>> Techically they are not von Neuman architecture. >>> Unified Memory with Multiple Tensor Cores is >>> not von Neuman architecture. >> >> We can use von Neumann architecture >> to emulate other architectures, but as long as it >> is performed by our computers it is technically >> von Neumann's. >> > Did you know, that 'von Neuman architecture' It really is spelled _von Neumann_, named after the Hungarian-American polymath John von Neumann. He was born (as Neumann János Lajos) into a non-observant Jewish family, and raised, in Budapest, then in the Empire of Austria-Hungary. His family name may be of German origin. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Life_and_education> > was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the early > 1930th? NOT true. Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J. Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor, EDVAC." <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Computer_science> ENIAC (completed in 1945) and EDVAC (completed in 1949, in operation from 1951 to 1962) were "programmable, electronic, general-purpose digital computers". They were NOT based on or copies of the Z series of computers as invented and built by Konrad Zuse; the first computer of that series that was fully digital was the Z5, ordered in 1950 and delivered in 1953: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDVAC> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z5_(computer)> > The liberators stole it from Zuse (like zillions of other patents from > other German inventors). Cite evidence. F'up2 comp.lang.misc -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-04 07:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) |
| Message-ID | <mpcoupF147lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #667669 |
Am Mittwoch000003, 03.12.2025 um 08:02 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am Montag000001, 01.12.2025 um 13:23 schrieb Maciej Woźniak: >>> On 12/1/2025 12:15 PM, Mild Shock wrote: >>>> You wrote: >>>> >>>> > No, they don't, they just add one (or some) >>>> > more layer on top of it. >>>> >>>> Techically they are not von Neuman architecture. >>>> Unified Memory with Multiple Tensor Cores is >>>> not von Neuman architecture. >>> >>> We can use von Neumann architecture >>> to emulate other architectures, but as long as it >>> is performed by our computers it is technically >>> von Neumann's. >>> >> Did you know, that 'von Neuman architecture' > > It really is spelled _von Neumann_, named after the Hungarian-American > polymath John von Neumann. He was born (as Neumann János Lajos) into a > non-observant Jewish family, and raised, in Budapest, then in the Empire of > Austria-Hungary. His family name may be of German origin. > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Life_and_education> > >> was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the early >> 1930th? > > NOT true. Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J. Presper > Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor, EDVAC." https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3 Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945? > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Computer_science> > > ENIAC (completed in 1945) and EDVAC (completed in 1949, in operation from > 1951 to 1962) were "programmable, electronic, general-purpose digital > computers". They were NOT based on or copies of the Z series of computers > as invented and built by Konrad Zuse; the first computer of that series that > was fully digital was the Z5, ordered in 1950 and delivered in 1953: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDVAC> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z5_(computer)> > >> The liberators stole it from Zuse (like zillions of other patents from >> other German inventors). > 'Operation paperclip' was actually a systematical manhunt by US forces for German scientists. Also the patens were plundered, especially those from single inventors like Zuse. The US tropps actually invaded eastern Germany prior to Soviet troops, because they wanted to get hold of scientists from Ohrdruf in Thuringia. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-04 09:57 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) |
| Message-ID | <10gridl$2f6kr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667682 |
On 2025-12-04 07:50, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Mittwoch000003, 03.12.2025 um 08:02 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >> Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am Montag000001, 01.12.2025 um 13:23 schrieb Maciej Woźniak: >>>> On 12/1/2025 12:15 PM, Mild Shock wrote: >>>>> You wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > No, they don't, they just add one (or some) >>>>> > more layer on top of it. >>>>> >>>>> Techically they are not von Neuman architecture. >>>>> Unified Memory with Multiple Tensor Cores is >>>>> not von Neuman architecture. >>>> >>>> We can use von Neumann architecture >>>> to emulate other architectures, but as long as it >>>> is performed by our computers it is technically >>>> von Neumann's. >>>> >>> Did you know, that 'von Neuman architecture' >> >> It really is spelled _von Neumann_, named after the Hungarian-American >> polymath John von Neumann. He was born (as Neumann János Lajos) into a >> non-observant Jewish family, and raised, in Budapest, then in the >> Empire of >> Austria-Hungary. His family name may be of German origin. >> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Life_and_education> >> >>> was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the >>> early >>> 1930th? >> >> NOT true. Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J. >> Presper >> Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor, EDVAC." > > > https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3 > > Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945? That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941. While concepts of modern computers where already exiting in Z1 the first reliably running computer system was the Z3, AFAIK. Yes, before the ENIAC. And the plans for the Z3 were of course designed before their initial operation in 1941, and based on concepts also of its predecessors. But yes, history was widely misrepresented and ignoring those! This is an effect you can observe also in other technical areas. > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Computer_science> >> >> ENIAC (completed in 1945) and EDVAC (completed in 1949, in operation from >> 1951 to 1962) were "programmable, electronic, general-purpose digital >> computers". They were NOT based on or copies of the Z series of >> computers >> as invented and built by Konrad Zuse; the first computer of that >> series that >> was fully digital was the Z5, ordered in 1950 and delivered in 1953: I think that statement with the somewhat fuzzy term "fully digital" and its attribution to the Z5 (and not before) is not correct. The point is that the first computers had slight variances in their concepts, and if one wants to claim being the first all he has to do is defining the own variances as the characteristic properties of "a real [first] computer". To me it's quite obvious that the Z3 was the first running computer with binary logic and programmable. But given the severe nationalistic/patriotic struggles and battles who was the first who invented whatever important was invented will make discussions here fruitless. The facts (dates and features, and even construction plans) can be found online, and instead of hitting each others' heads with fitting "definitions" to justify one or the other position (which is doomed to fail) people can read the sources and judge themselves; there's a lot of substantial/reliable material available. >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDVAC> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z5_(computer)> >> >>> The liberators stole it from Zuse (like zillions of other patents from >>> other German inventors). >> > > 'Operation paperclip' was actually a systematical manhunt by US forces > for German scientists. > > Also the patens were plundered, especially those from single inventors > like Zuse. > > The US tropps actually invaded eastern Germany prior to Soviet troops, > because they wanted to get hold of scientists from Ohrdruf in Thuringia. > > TH > (I wonder whether any of above newsgroups is relevant for that topic.) Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Telly Missiakos <siy@ioet.gr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-05 14:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) |
| Message-ID | <10guq1s$1eitc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667684 |
Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 2025-12-04 07:50, Thomas Heger wrote: >> 'Operation paperclip' was actually a systematical manhunt by US forces >> for German scientists. >> >> Also the patens were plundered, especially those from single inventors >> like Zuse. >> >> The US tropps actually invaded eastern Germany prior to Soviet troops, >> because they wanted to get hold of scientists from Ohrdruf in >> Thuringia. >> >> TH >> >> > (I wonder whether any of above newsgroups is relevant for that topic.) > > Janis it is, as the history you send people to read, is most probably very fake.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-06 17:02 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) |
| Message-ID | <10h1k31$108a$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #667684 |
Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 2025-12-04 07:50, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am Mittwoch000003, 03.12.2025 um 08:02 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >>> Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Did you know, that 'von [Neumann] architecture' >>> [...] >>>> was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the >>>> early 1930th? >>> >>> NOT true. Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J. >>> Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor, >>> EDVAC." >>> >>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3 >> >> Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945? > > That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941. Twice wrong (according to the Wikipedia articles about them). > While concepts of modern computers where already exiting in Z1 > the first reliably running computer system was the Z3, AFAIK. It was a *digital* computer, but NOT the first *electronic* computer. > Yes, before the ENIAC. The ENIAC (completed in 1945) was (arguably) the first digital *electronic* computer: * Z1 (1936-1938): "motor-driven mechanical computer" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z1_(computer)> * Z2 (1940): "electromechanical (mechanical and relay-based) digital computer" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z2_(computer)> * Z3 (1938-1941): "electromechanical computer [...] the world's first working programmable, fully automatic digital computer" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z3_(computer)> * Z4 (1942): "arguably the world's first commercial digital computer [...] Like the earlier Z2, it comprised a combination of mechanical memory and electromechanical logic." <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z4_(computer)> * ENIAC (1945): "first programmable, electronic, general-purpose digital computer" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC> * EDVAC (1946-1952): "one of the earliest electronic computers [...] binary rather than decimal, and was designed to be a stored-program computer". <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDVAC> * Z5 (1950-1953): "the first commercial built-to-order mainframe in Germany" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z5_(computer)> > And the plans for the Z3 were of course designed before their initial operation in 1941, and based on > concepts also of its predecessors. > > But yes, history was widely misrepresented and ignoring those! Nonsense. > [conspiracy theories/historical inaccuracies] > > (I wonder whether any of above newsgroups is relevant for that topic.) At most comp.lang.misc is regarding the computer-scientific part; but Thomas Heger keeps ignoring the Followup-To that I set, and keeps crossposting without Followup-To themselves. You are doing the latter, too. Honi soit qui mal y pense. F'up2 comp.lang.misc again -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-07 10:22 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) |
| Message-ID | <mpkutsFcrt0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #667684 |
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou: >>> >>>>>> > No, they don't, they just add one (or some) >>>>>> > more layer on top of it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Techically they are not von Neuman architecture. >>>>>> Unified Memory with Multiple Tensor Cores is >>>>>> not von Neuman architecture. >>>>> >>>>> We can use von Neumann architecture >>>>> to emulate other architectures, but as long as it >>>>> is performed by our computers it is technically >>>>> von Neumann's. >>>>> >>>> Did you know, that 'von Neuman architecture' >>> >>> It really is spelled _von Neumann_, named after the Hungarian-American >>> polymath John von Neumann. He was born (as Neumann János Lajos) into a >>> non-observant Jewish family, and raised, in Budapest, then in the >>> Empire of >>> Austria-Hungary. His family name may be of German origin. >>> >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Life_and_education> >>> >>>> was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the >>>> early >>>> 1930th? >>> >>> NOT true. Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J. >>> Presper >>> Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor, EDVAC." >> >> >> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3 >> >> Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945? > > That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941. Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was actually the Z1 of 1937. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von-Neumann-Architektur quote " Viele Ideen der Von-Neumann-Architektur waren schon 1936 von Konrad Zuse ausgearbeitet, in zwei Patentschriften 1937 dokumentiert und größtenteils bereits 1938 in der Z1-Maschine mechanisch realisiert worden. 1941 baute Konrad Zuse in Zusammenarbeit mit Helmut Schreyer mit der Zuse Z3 den ersten funktionsfähigen Digitalrechner der Welt. Es gilt aber als unwahrscheinlich, dass von Neumann die Arbeiten Zuses kannte, als er 1945 seine Architektur vorstellte. " translated by google "Many ideas of von Neumann's architecture had already been developed by Konrad Zuse in 1936, documented in two patents in 1937, and largely implemented mechanically in the Z1 machine by 1938. In 1941, Konrad Zuse, in collaboration with Helmut Schreyer, built the Zuse Z3, the world's first functional digital computer. However, it is considered unlikely that von Neumann was aware of Zuse's work when he presented his architecture in 1945." BUT: nobody gives a shit, whether or not someone knows about proir rights (or not). It is patently irrelevant, whether von Neumann knew the patents of Zuse (or not). Therefore the patents of Zuse were simply stolen and also the invention itself ascribed to somebody else > While concepts of modern computers where already exiting in Z1 > the first reliably running computer system was the Z3, AFAIK. > Yes, before the ENIAC. And the plans for the Z3 were of course > designed before their initial operation in 1941, and based on > concepts also of its predecessors. > > But yes, history was widely misrepresented and ignoring those! > This is an effect you can observe also in other technical areas. > But theft is still theft, even if it is for the sake of national pride. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-07 10:39 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) |
| Message-ID | <10h3i14$78fj$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #667698 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Your newsreader is still broken/misconfigured. How is it possible that you have *still* not noticed yet that it produces broken attribution lines like these? (The fact aside that most of the information there is superfluous.) Maybe you should focus more on *your* output instead :-> >>>>> Did you know, that 'von [Neumann] architecture' >>>> [...] >>>>> was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the >>>>> early 1930th? >>>> >>>> NOT true. Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J. >>>> Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor, >>>> EDVAC." >>> >>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3 >>> >>> Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945? >> >> That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941. > > Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was > actually the Z1 of 1937. Irrelevant (regarding to your original argument): > https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von-Neumann-Architektur > quote > > " > Viele Ideen der Von-Neumann-Architektur waren schon 1936 von Konrad Zuse > ausgearbeitet, in zwei Patentschriften 1937 dokumentiert und > größtenteils bereits 1938 in der Z1-Maschine mechanisch realisiert > worden. 1941 baute Konrad Zuse in Zusammenarbeit mit Helmut Schreyer mit > der Zuse Z3 den ersten funktionsfähigen Digitalrechner der Welt. Es gilt > aber als unwahrscheinlich, dass von Neumann die Arbeiten Zuses kannte, > als er 1945 seine Architektur vorstellte. " > > translated by google > "Many ideas of von Neumann's architecture had already been developed by > Konrad Zuse in 1936, documented in two patents in 1937, and largely > implemented mechanically in the Z1 machine by 1938. In 1941, Konrad > Zuse, in collaboration with Helmut Schreyer, built the Zuse Z3, the > world's first functional digital computer. However, it is considered > unlikely that von Neumann was aware of Zuse's work when he presented his > architecture in 1945." > > BUT: nobody gives a shit, whether or not someone knows about proir > rights (or not). It is clear that *you* don't "give a shit" because this additional information completely destroys your argument. However, that is a fallacy. > It is patently irrelevant, whether von Neumann knew the patents of Zuse > (or not). No, that is actually the core issue here. > But theft is still theft, even if it is for the sake of national pride. There was no theft. You are delusional. F'up2 comp.lang.misc again (With your newsreader [Thunderbird], you have to *manually* *add* back* the original groups in order to keep crossposting without Followup-To. So this is not or a newsreader bug, but *malice* on your part, perhaps out of delusions of grandeur. JFYI: Your postings are *NOT* *that* *important* that you have to blast them to 3 newsgroups *continuously*, only one of which has to do with the topic of the discussion.) -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-07 10:46 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) |
| Message-ID | <10h3idv$78p2$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #667698 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Your newsreader is still broken/misconfigured. How is it possible that you have *still* not noticed yet that it produces broken attribution lines like these? (The fact aside that most of the information there is superfluous.) Maybe you should focus more on *your* output instead :-> >>>>> Did you know, that 'von [Neumann] architecture' >>>> [...] >>>>> was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the >>>>> early 1930th? >>>> >>>> NOT true. Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J. >>>> Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor, >>>> EDVAC." >>> >>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3 >>> >>> Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945? >> >> That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941. > > Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was > actually the Z1 of 1937. Irrelevant (regarding to your original argument): > https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von-Neumann-Architektur > quote > > " > Viele Ideen der Von-Neumann-Architektur waren schon 1936 von Konrad Zuse > ausgearbeitet, in zwei Patentschriften 1937 dokumentiert und > größtenteils bereits 1938 in der Z1-Maschine mechanisch realisiert > worden. 1941 baute Konrad Zuse in Zusammenarbeit mit Helmut Schreyer mit > der Zuse Z3 den ersten funktionsfähigen Digitalrechner der Welt. Es gilt > aber als unwahrscheinlich, dass von Neumann die Arbeiten Zuses kannte, > als er 1945 seine Architektur vorstellte. " > > translated by google > "Many ideas of von Neumann's architecture had already been developed by > Konrad Zuse in 1936, documented in two patents in 1937, and largely > implemented mechanically in the Z1 machine by 1938. In 1941, Konrad > Zuse, in collaboration with Helmut Schreyer, built the Zuse Z3, the > world's first functional digital computer. However, it is considered > unlikely that von Neumann was aware of Zuse's work when he presented his > architecture in 1945." > > BUT: nobody gives a shit, whether or not someone knows about proir > rights (or not). It is clear that *you* don't "give a shit" because this additional information completely destroys your argument. However, that is a fallacy. > It is patently irrelevant, whether von Neumann knew the patents of Zuse > (or not). No, that is actually the core issue here. > But theft is still theft, even if it is for the sake of national pride. There was no theft. You are delusional. F'up2 comp.lang.misc again (With your newsreader [Thunderbird], you have to *manually* *add* back* the original groups in order to keep crossposting without Followup-To. So this is not a newsreader bug, but *malice* on your part, perhaps out of delusions of grandeur. JFYI: Your postings are *NOT* *that* *important* that you have to blast them to 3 newsgroups *continuously*, only one of which has to do with the topic of the discussion.) -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-07 11:42 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) |
| Message-ID | <10h3ln0$1o41s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667698 |
On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou: >> [...] >> That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941. > > Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was > actually the Z1 of 1937. Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3. My point was just when the first _working_ digital and programmable computer was invented. - And in my humble opinion that was the Z3! A bit care must be taken though with your quoted Wiki paragraph: "Viele Ideen der Von-Neumann-Architektur [...]" It's - at least by this statement - open what was already existing and what property was new in von Neumann's concepts. - Here's where the arguments may become heated; remember my statement about: "just define the properties of the own invention, and every other (prior) system may not match by some detail" (sort of). The sometimes used technology reasoning is certainly not convincing if we're speaking about the architecture principles and concepts. > [...] > It is patently irrelevant, whether von Neumann knew the patents of Zuse > (or not). Yes, basically also true. - But mind that a "Deutsches Reichspatent" isn't valid in the USA. You need a separate application in the USA. What's also true is that even a "Deutsches Reichspatent" would make it possible to make a correct historic attribution of that invention (if only 'ex post'). > > Therefore the patents of Zuse were simply stolen and also the invention > itself ascribed to somebody else Given that they assume that von Neumann did not know about Zuse's invention I think that the word "stolen" is a too harsh valuation. I agree concerning the existing (and common) ascription mischief. > >> [...] >> >> But yes, history was widely misrepresented and ignoring those! >> This is an effect you can observe also in other technical areas. > > But theft is still theft, even if it is for the sake of national pride. Yes, but consider also what I wrote above. Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-07 16:26 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) |
| Message-ID | <20251207162641.00004c27@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #667703 |
On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 11:42:40 +0100 Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou: > >> [...] > >> That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941. > > > > Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was > > actually the Z1 of 1937. > > Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that > the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3. > I'd say, no. Neither Z1 nor Z3 are von Neumann architecture computers. And it has nothing to them being either electronic or mechanical. The key element (==distinguishing feature) of von Neumann architecture, at least in modern (say, of last 60-65 years) meaning of the term is that program store and data memory reside in the same space. Which leads to possibility of self-modifying code. Which led to Von Neumann's claim that index register is unnecessary for array processing. Which is undeniable mathematical truth and serious engineering mistake at the same time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 04:25 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) |
| Message-ID | <10h5gfd$1o41s$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667706 |
On 2025-12-07 15:26, Michael S wrote: > On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 11:42:40 +0100 > Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou: >>>> [...] >>>> That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941. >>> >>> Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was >>> actually the Z1 of 1937. >> >> Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that >> the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3. >> > > I'd say, no. Neither Z1 nor Z3 are von Neumann architecture computers. Right. - Considering all properties, von Neumann's computers had a von Neumann's architecture. > And it has nothing to them being either electronic or mechanical. (This was just one common example by some to attest its innovation and being "the first".) > The key element (==distinguishing feature) of von Neumann architecture, > at least in modern (say, of last 60-65 years) meaning of the term > is that program store and data memory reside in the same space. Yes. But is that crucial for a programmable computer? Is that the functionally necessary or important element? - I'd clearly say no! > Which leads to possibility of self-modifying code. And that specifically is neither a necessity for a "[universally] programmable computer" - IMO the historic noteworthy key property! - nor an example how systems sensibly should be (or are) programmed. We avoid in practice exactly that property (modulo virus-developers, maybe, and similar corner cases). > Which led to Von > Neumann's claim that index register is unnecessary for array > processing. Which is undeniable mathematical truth and serious > engineering mistake at the same time. Yes. An inherent logical problem lies also in the argumentation chain we commonly see... "Contemporary computers are "basically" all characterized by von Neumann's architectures." "Von Neumann's computers are defined by ...property list..." "Von Neumann was the inventor of [contemporary] computers." (I assume you notice the dodge.) I really don't want to engage in such discussions[*] but I think we should at least understand the mechanics behind that. The interests and the rhetoric/argumentation moves used to establish such agendas. Janis [*] We know how the inventions have been and (partly) still are attributed, we see the various areas, and the actors' agendas and interests, and we observe that also on various levels (countries, competing companies, partners, plain sponges, gender status, etc.); there's countless examples of historic mis-attributions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 08:51 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) |
| Message-ID | <10h601k$e17a$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #667721 |
Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 2025-12-07 15:26, Michael S wrote: >> On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 11:42:40 +0100 >> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou: >>>>> [...] >>>>> That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941. >>>> >>>> Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was >>>> actually the Z1 of 1937. >>> >>> Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that >>> the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3. >> >> I'd say, no. Neither Z1 nor Z3 are von Neumann architecture computers. > > Right. - Considering all properties, von Neumann's computers had a > von Neumann's architecture. *facepalm* Once again: | Von Neumann consulted for the Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory, most | notably on the ENIAC project,[274] as a member of its Scientific Advisory | Committee.[275] Although the single-memory, stored-program architecture is | commonly called von Neumann architecture, the architecture was based on | the work of J. Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its | successor, EDVAC. While consulting for the EDVAC project at the University | of Pennsylvania, von Neumann wrote an incomplete "First Draft of a Report | on the EDVAC". The paper, whose premature distribution nullified the | patent claims of Eckert and Mauchly, described a computer, that stored | both its data and its program in the same address space, unlike the | earliest computers which stored their programs separately on paper tape or | plugboards. This architecture became the basis of most modern computer | designs. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Computer_science> FOLLOWUP-TO comp.lang.misc! (for the single-celled ones) -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 13:58 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) |
| Message-ID | <20251208135825.000069dc@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #667721 |
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 04:25:32 +0100 Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 2025-12-07 15:26, Michael S wrote: > > On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 11:42:40 +0100 > > Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>> Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis > >>> Papanagnou: > >>>> [...] > >>>> That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941. > >>> > >>> Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was > >>> actually the Z1 of 1937. > >> > >> Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that > >> the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3. > >> > > > > I'd say, no. Neither Z1 nor Z3 are von Neumann architecture > > computers. > > Right. - Considering all properties, von Neumann's computers had a > von Neumann's architecture. > > > And it has nothing to them being either electronic or mechanical. > > (This was just one common example by some to attest its innovation > and being "the first".) > > > The key element (==distinguishing feature) of von Neumann > > architecture, at least in modern (say, of last 60-65 years) meaning > > of the term is that program store and data memory reside in the > > same space. > > Yes. But is that crucial for a programmable computer? Is that the > functionally necessary or important element? - I'd clearly say no! > Is it not particularly important for programmable computer. When I design MCU-based systems, my MCUs are physically able to do von Neumann (i.e. to run program from RAM) but I don't utilize this property, treating them as if they were Harvard. The biggest and fastest growing computing business of recent years is based on programmable computers (GPGPUs, TPUs, NPUs) that can not modify theier own programs. However, computers with which we interact most, so called general-purpose computers, from smartphones to servers, are very heavily dependent on being von Neumann. > > > Which leads to possibility of self-modifying code. > > And that specifically is neither a necessity for a "[universally] > programmable computer" - IMO the historic noteworthy key property! - > nor an example how systems sensibly should be (or are) programmed. > We avoid in practice exactly that property (modulo virus-developers, > maybe, and similar corner cases). > You are thinking about SMC at small. Think about it at larger scale. Level one: OS loads application. It's rare that it just blindly copies the image from disk. More often it modifies it to fit at particular address. Esp. so today, with ASLR considered must. Level two: JIT. For good or for bad, a cornerstone of modern web. > > Which led to Von > > Neumann's claim that index register is unnecessary for array > > processing. Which is undeniable mathematical truth and serious > > engineering mistake at the same time. > > Yes. > > > An inherent logical problem lies also in the argumentation chain > we commonly see... > "Contemporary computers are "basically" all characterized by > von Neumann's architectures." > "Von Neumann's computers are defined by ...property list..." > "Von Neumann was the inventor of [contemporary] computers." > (I assume you notice the dodge.) > > I really don't want to engage in such discussions[*] but I think we > should at least understand the mechanics behind that. The interests > and the rhetoric/argumentation moves used to establish such agendas. > I don't find it interesting. > Janis > > [*] We know how the inventions have been and (partly) still are > attributed, we see the various areas, and the actors' agendas and > interests, and we observe that also on various levels (countries, > competing companies, partners, plain sponges, gender status, etc.); > there's countless examples of historic mis-attributions. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-09 09:15 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) |
| Message-ID | <mpq3pkF8qlmU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #667721 |
Am Montag000008, 08.12.2025 um 04:25 schrieb Janis Papanagnou: > On 2025-12-07 15:26, Michael S wrote: >> On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 11:42:40 +0100 >> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou: >>>>> [...] >>>>> That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941. >>>> >>>> Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was >>>> actually the Z1 of 1937. >>> >>> Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that >>> the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3. >>> >> > > An inherent logical problem lies also in the argumentation chain > we commonly see... > "Contemporary computers are "basically" all characterized by > von Neumann's architectures." > "Von Neumann's computers are defined by ...property list..." > "Von Neumann was the inventor of [contemporary] computers." > (I assume you notice the dodge.) > > I really don't want to engage in such discussions[*] but I think we > should at least understand the mechanics behind that. The interests > and the rhetoric/argumentation moves used to establish such agendas. > > Janis > > [*] We know how the inventions have been and (partly) still are > attributed, we see the various areas, and the actors' agendas and > interests, and we observe that also on various levels (countries, > competing companies, partners, plain sponges, gender status, etc.); > there's countless examples of historic mis-attributions. > It's a HUGE problem, because tons of almost every kind of art, music, invention, writing and so forth was not created by the famed person, who allegedly created it. Usually you have an 'alpha', who didn't do anything at all (sing, paint, write or invent) and a (or occasionally many) 'beta' who did all the difficult work for a small amount of money. Now the 'alpha' gets the product of a certain beta from an agent (let's call that 'Q') and declares it to be the own work. Other scumbags clap their hands and write euphoric articles. The work is copied and sold millions of times and everybody is happy. (Well, not quite everybody is happy. But that little inconvenience could be accepted.) TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 08:21 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) |
| Message-ID | <mpnc8cFopp2U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #667703 |
Am Sonntag000007, 07.12.2025 um 11:42 schrieb Janis Papanagnou: > On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou: >>> [...] >>> That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941. >> >> Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was >> actually the Z1 of 1937. > > Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that > the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3. > > My point was just when the first _working_ digital and programmable > computer was invented. - And in my humble opinion that was the Z3! > > A bit care must be taken though with your quoted Wiki paragraph: > "Viele Ideen der Von-Neumann-Architektur [...]" > It's - at least by this statement - open what was already existing > and what property was new in von Neumann's concepts. - Here's where > the arguments may become heated; remember my statement about: "just > define the properties of the own invention, and every other (prior) > system may not match by some detail" (sort of). > > The sometimes used technology reasoning is certainly not convincing > if we're speaking about the architecture principles and concepts. > >> [...] > >> It is patently irrelevant, whether von Neumann knew the patents of >> Zuse (or not). > Yes, basically also true. - But mind that a "Deutsches Reichspatent" > isn't valid in the USA. You need a separate application in the USA. An invention needs to be new. Otherwise it is not an invention. At least this is the main principle upon which patents are granted in Germany. The US-patent office is based upon a slightly different principle. The main principle is that of a 'claim', which is occupied by some company. This difference can also be found in the difference between US copyright and German 'Urheberrecht'. German Urheberrecht is not based on any kind of registration, but automatically granted to the creator of some sort of art. And patents can not be registered in Germany, if the invention isn't new, whether 'prior art' is registered, patended or just published in a magazine. This is a huge difference, because no formal registration of prior art is necessary. In contrast the US patent is mainly a claim and 'occupied' by whatever dirty means necessary. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 09:06 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) |
| Message-ID | <10h60um$1o41r$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #667723 |
On 2025-12-08 08:21, Thomas Heger wrote: > > An invention needs to be new. Otherwise it is not an invention. Not only new, but also not being something considered trivial or otherwise not "worthy" of being a patent. > At least this is the main principle upon which patents are granted in > Germany. In the German patent history we can observe that even marvellous inventions have not been granted a patent because the officials could neither understand nor see the actual or potential future relevance and usefulness. (My point was the [non-existing] reach of a German patent in the USA.) > > The US-patent office is based upon a slightly different principle. > > The main principle is that of a 'claim', which is occupied by some company. With a granted patent in Germany you can exploit the commercial gains yourself or with companies licensing the patents during the first years after getting the patent. Besides the commercial aspects the primary point of a patent can probably be derived from the meaning of its name; Latin "patere", to be open [for the society], to provide gain for mankind. (Semantics in popular recognition may have changed given the prevalence of commercial thinking worldwide.) > [snip digressions to 'US copyright' and 'Urheberrecht'] Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web