Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: New crap statement ? Perpetuum mobile

Author: Miguel A. Ballicora

Date: 10:17:20 10/03/01

Go up one level in this thread


On October 03, 2001 at 11:56:38, Sune Fischer wrote:

>On October 03, 2001 at 10:51:13, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote:
>
>>You did not like Bruce's example? This one does not involve scientific
>>knowledge:
>>Team A: One person , 1 cart, 100 boxes too heavy to lift by only one person.
>>Team B: Two persons, 1 cart, same 100 boxes.
>>Task = move them 100 yards.
>>
>>Team B will take <50% of the time that it will take for Team A. Lifting
>>once onto a cart is easier than pushing.
>
>This analogy fails because there are tasks that can be done by two persons and
>not by one alone.

Exactly, some tasks can be done by two persons and not by one alone. That is
how the mechanics of the solution changes. That is what Bruce Moreland
wanted to illustrate. Once you have two persons, you do not have to
do exactly the same procedure that you do with only one person. It is
more efficient to change the procedure and take advantage of that. That is
a synergistic effect. The example was intended to show what a synergistic
effect is and nothing more. For that purpose, the analogy is ok.

>This is not the case for CPUs.

The question is: could be the case for two threads? I say "probably" not,
Bob Hyatt says "provably" not. That is the point of disagreement.

Regards,
Miguel




This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.