Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 15:42:17 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. > >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 Okay, I've said this elsewhere, but here's a good place to clear things up. Bob and I are _not_ arguing that B cannot be super-linearly faster than A. Bob and I are arguing that B's existance proves the existance of Algorithm C, a sequential algorithm that B will not be super-linearly faster than. If domain D is not well-enough understood, then it may be necessary to implement C as a sequential simulation of B. Bob and I are furthermore also stating that since we know that C exists and that we can implement C, it is not appropriate to report data comparing only A and B. Dave
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.