Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 10:32:09 10/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 04, 2001 at 18:42:17, Dave Gomboc wrote: >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 Yes, that's true, and what I'm saying is not hard to understand either. I am saying that the discovery of a consistent super-linear parallel result should result in investigation, the point of which is to improve the serial version (which will probably improve the parallel version, too). http://www.icdchess.com/forums/1/message.shtml?191831 Look at the last couple of paragraphs of mine, where I lay this out, and then Bob's last paragraph, where he immediately disagrees with something that I am not even saying. This is like being on an Escher staircase. 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.