Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 12:20:41 10/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 04, 2001 at 14:54:01, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On October 04, 2001 at 06:46:48, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On October 04, 2001 at 04:56:08, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>The difference is that the other side(I and Bruce) do not say that they know >>>that there is a super linear improvement but that we cannot say that it is >>>impossible with the known algorithm of today. >>> >>>I said that the only way is to investigate the problem by test positions in >>>order to see if programs can get a super linear improvement from 2 processors. >> >>But that is not the only way, you can also use logic. >>This is like explaning to an inventor why he can't make a perpetuum mobile >>machine. If he doesn't understand the laws of physics, does not know of energy >>conservation, then he will keep arguing till the day he die, that "we can not >>know for certain until we have tried everything". >> >>We _do_ know, there is proof and Bob has outlined it several times, but if you >>won't listen or understand, then we have a communication problem. >> >>-S. > >A perpetual motion machine is impossible. A gasoline engine is not impossible. >If you assert that a gasoline engine can exist, and someone else accuses you of >trying to invent a perpetual motion machine, you can point out how the two >differ, and you can describe how the engine can work in practice, but if they >keep telling you that you are violating the laws of physics, what can you do? > >How would you like it if when I got into a sticky point with one of my >arguments, I wrote a big long thing declaring that you don't exist and could >therefore be ignored. The main difference here is, that there exsits solid hard indisputable proof, that no super linear speed up is possible! I'm sure Bob will supply you with all the references needed if you ask him. As a scientist I am used to seeing proofs, understanding them, and then moving on. I don't debate forever if A=C, when I know A=B and B=C. I guess I have to get used to the fact that not all people are trained in the language of science. I think I better keep quite now, I have nothing more to add to this subject, and I don't want to offend anyone in this great forum, I really love discussing chess programming with the best :) -S. >Algorithm A is a single-processor algorithm designed to operate in domain D. >Algorithm B is a dual-processor algorithm derived from A, and applied to domain >D. > >There is nothing that would preclude B from being more than twice as fast as A. >A may not be the most optimal algorithm. Adding parallelism in order to create >B may have changed the algorithm significantly. The two "halves" of B may >interact profitably. Domain D may not be well enough understood. > >None of this results in any risk of the planet splitting open or Isaac Newton >being refuted. > >bruce
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.