Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #59531 > unrolled thread

could you have a forth on linux on 40 machines and 1 hand work to 39?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  could you have a forth on linux on 40 machines and 1 hand work to 39? gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 22:22 -0700
    Re: could you have a forth on linux on 40 machines and 1 hand work to 39? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 08:28 +0300
      Re: could you have a forth on linux on 40 machines and 1 hand work to 39? Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-05-19 01:50 -0400
        Re: could you have a forth on linux on 40 machines and 1 hand work to 39? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 08:54 +0300
          Re: could you have a forth on linux on 40 machines and 1 hand work to 39? Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 02:38 -0700
            Re: could you have a forth on linux on 40 machines and 1 hand work to 39? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 12:47 +0300
        Re: could you have a forth on linux on 40 machines and 1 hand work to 39? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-19 07:50 -0500
          Re: could you have a forth on linux on 40 machines and 1 hand work to 39? Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-05-20 04:31 -0400
            Re: could you have a forth on linux on 40 machines and 1 hand work to 39? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-20 04:02 -0500
    Re: could you have a forth on linux on 40 machines and 1 hand work to 39? Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-05-19 01:50 -0400
      Re: could you have a forth on linux on 40 machines and 1 hand work to 39? gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 08:39 -0700
        Re: could you have a forth on linux on 40 machines and 1 hand work to 39? Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> - 2017-05-19 19:16 +0100

#59531 — could you have a forth on linux on 40 machines and 1 hand work to 39?

how would they communicate?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#59533

On 19/05/2017 8:22, gavino himself wrote:
> how would they communicate?

By quantum-entanglement

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59535

On Fri, 19 May 2017 08:28:39 +0300
Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19/05/2017 8:22, gavino himself wrote:

> > how would they communicate?  
> 
> By quantum-entanglement

I'm sure you meant that as a joke, but it's a valid future solution.


Rod Pemberton
-- 
"Well, many people are really f---ing stupid too.  Should we just adopt
all their standards?" - George Carlin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59536

On 19/05/2017 8:50, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Fri, 19 May 2017 08:28:39 +0300
> Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 19/05/2017 8:22, gavino himself wrote:
> 
>>> how would they communicate?  
>>
>> By quantum-entanglement
> 
> I'm sure you meant that as a joke, but it's a valid future solution.

I was being facetious, yes.  I don't know whether or not it will become
a valid solution in the future, there is a lot to be worked out there first.

Before we solve communications via QE, I would like to understand why
Govno keeps posting?  I think a PhD in psychological disorders awaits
the one who can crack that puzzle.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59541

пятница, 19 мая 2017 г., 8:54:35 UTC+3 пользователь Ron Aaron написал:
> On 19/05/2017 8:50, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 May 2017 08:28:39 +0300
> > Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 19/05/2017 8:22, gavino himself wrote:
> > 
> >>> how would they communicate?  
> >>
> >> By quantum-entanglement
> > 
> > I'm sure you meant that as a joke, but it's a valid future solution.
> 
> I was being facetious, yes.  I don't know whether or not it will become
> a valid solution in the future, there is a lot to be worked out there first.
> 
> Before we solve communications via QE, I would like to understand why
> Govno keeps posting?  I think a PhD in psychological disorders awaits
> the one who can crack that puzzle.

You are probably right. A known sutiation and known psychological direction called "psychology of professional activity". With corresponding risks and disorders. Infinite source of energy is too naiv, but programming language with magical properties is less clear to be discarded and more risky to be attractive for obsession.

> Govno keeps posting?

Hmm... do you speak Russian? :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59542

On 05/19/17 12:38, Ilya Tarasov wrote:
> пятница, 19 мая 2017 г., 8:54:35 UTC+3 пользователь Ron Aaron написал:

>> Govno keeps posting?
> 
> Hmm... do you speak Russian? :)

Only food words and bad words...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59548

Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 May 2017 08:28:39 +0300
> Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 19/05/2017 8:22, gavino himself wrote:
> 
>> > how would they communicate?  
>> 
>> By quantum-entanglement
> 
> I'm sure you meant that as a joke, but it's a valid future solution.

It's not.  There's an explanation of the no-communication theorem,
with a supporting formal argument, at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59577

On Fri, 19 May 2017 07:50:13 -0500
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:

> Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 May 2017 08:28:39 +0300
> > Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 19/05/2017 8:22, gavino himself wrote:  

> >> > how would they communicate?    
> >> 
> >> By quantum-entanglement  
> > 
> > I'm sure you meant that as a joke, but it's a valid future
> > solution.  
> 
> It's not.  There's an explanation of the no-communication theorem,
> with a supporting formal argument, at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem.
> 

Then, what are these articles going on about?

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/05/scientists-have-achieved-quantum-communication-for-the-first-time
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2017/may/18/particle-free-quantum-communication-is-achieved-in-the-lab
http://www.sciencealert.com/a-new-quantum-teleportation-distance-record-has-been-set
http://www.sciencealert.com/quantum-teleportation-was-just-achieved-over-7-km-of-cable

And, just how could you have quantum computing without communication?

In order to quantum compute, quantum information must be stored and
retrieved from quantum memory using quantum communication.  Yes?


Rod Pemberton
-- 
"Well, many people are really f---ing stupid too.  Should we just adopt
all their standards?" - George Carlin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59582

Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 May 2017 07:50:13 -0500
> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 19 May 2017 08:28:39 +0300
>> > Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 19/05/2017 8:22, gavino himself wrote:  
> 
>> >> > how would they communicate?    
>> >> 
>> >> By quantum-entanglement  
>> > 
>> > I'm sure you meant that as a joke, but it's a valid future
>> > solution.  
>> 
>> It's not.  There's an explanation of the no-communication theorem,
>> with a supporting formal argument, at
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem.
> 
> Then, what are these articles going on about?
> 
> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/05/scientists-have-achieved-quantum-communication-for-the-first-time
> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2017/may/18/particle-free-quantum-communication-is-achieved-in-the-lab
> http://www.sciencealert.com/a-new-quantum-teleportation-distance-record-has-been-set
> http://www.sciencealert.com/quantum-teleportation-was-just-achieved-over-7-km-of-cable

Hmm, OK.  Those articles are two different phenomena from the one
prohibited by the no-communication theorem, and they don't involve
instantaneous communication.  In the case of the first two articles,
this isn't about entanglement at all: no physical particles are used
in the communication.  In the second two articles the subject is
quantum teleportation, in which you've communicated quantum
information from A to B, but you've had to use classical communication
as part of the process.

> And, just how could you have quantum computing without
> communication?
> 
> In order to quantum compute, quantum information must be stored and
> retrieved from quantum memory using quantum communication.  Yes?

Obviously, measurement of the system has to take place at the end of a
computation, and it that sense something has to be communicated.  But
do you really think that measuring the result of a quantum computation
can reasonably be described as "communicating by quantum-entanglement"?
If so, fine, but I don't.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59534

On Thu, 18 May 2017 22:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> wrote:

> how would they communicate?

They would communicate over ethernet like every modern computer.  Why
do you think that using Forth software would change the hardware used?


Rod Pemberton
-- 
"Well, many people are really f---ing stupid too.  Should we just adopt
all their standards?" - George Carlin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59554

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 1:49:24 AM UTC-4, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2017 22:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
> gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > how would they communicate?
> 
> They would communicate over ethernet like every modern computer.  Why
> do you think that using Forth software would change the hardware used?
> 
> 
> Rod Pemberton
> -- 
> "Well, many people are really f---ing stupid too.  Should we just adopt
> all their standards?" - George Carlin

ok but how would I from say gforth see or program against the 39 other boxes?
.....
or send commands and get data back?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59562

On Fri, 19 May 2017 08:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> wrote:

> ok but how would I from say gforth see or program against the
> 39 other boxes? .....
> or send commands and get data back?

Gforth 0.7.9_20170427, Copyright (C) 1995-2016 Free Software
Foundation, Inc. Gforth comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for
details type `license' Type `help' for basic help
  ok
include unix/socket.fs  ok

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web