Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: New crap statement ? Perpetuum mobile

Author: Sune Fischer

Date: 14:05:46 10/03/01

Go up one level in this thread


On October 03, 2001 at 16:28:15, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote:

>>So we have reduced the problem to the following:
>>There exists a parallel algorithim, which in no way can be rewritten into a
>>serial one without increased "work".
>>This is now the point of disagreement, right?
>
>This is what I say:
>The possibility that somebody writes at one point an algorithm using two threads
>(parallel) that could faster than a similar using one has not been proven false
>yet. Of course you could "serialize it" but in theory this could either 1)
>create some overhead or 2) be very inconvenient to rewrite (like recursion is
>not always convenient to be rewritten). I do not see that this hypothetical
>situation would violate any "law".
>
>Regards,
>Miguel

Well, we are not as far apart as I initially thought;)
This is not in direct violation to any physics I know either (as far as I can
see).
It was the >2 discussion that made my eyes pop out.

I suppose it is hard to prove that there are _no_ algorithms where using
multiple threads would be convenient.

-S.







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.