Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 09:35:56 01/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 24, 2005 at 12:33:49, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 24, 2005 at 12:04:56, Dieter Buerssner wrote: > >>On January 24, 2005 at 11:53:38, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>> It might require the square of that (so 50,000*50,000 acres). >> >>Dann, think again about this :-) Also, assume for a moment, you had given the >>area in square miles instead of acres. Now square that area, or in square light >>years - you will come to the conclusion, that almost no space at all will be >>needed ... . And of course, if you square an area, you don't have an area >>anymore, but rather something with dimentsion length^^4. > >Actually, a cube is a very good idea. The particular substance I described for >storing data is a doped crystal (rather inexpensive too). It is the same thing >that is used for dosimeters for people who walk around in nuclear reactors. >When ionizing radiation strikes the crystal, it leaves tracks that can be >measured. Using this principle, they are able to record a terrabyte in one >square centimeter. Interesingly, you can read the whole crystal at once with >CCDs. > >Now, suppose that we record in layers so that really we record data in 3 >dimentions. Instead of a terrabyte per square centimeter, we may get 1e36 bytes >per cubic centimeter. Now, suppose that we have some kind of loss with a factor >of one million. That would mean 1e30 bytes per cubic centimeter. > >A cubic meter of this crystal could store an awful lot of information. >Specifically, 1e90 bytes. Math spasm. Only 1e45 bytes, since we already had the square. But that looks like a pretty nice number for chess. And a cubic meter of crystal is certainly doable. Even if we need two or three of them. >So anything is possible, if we put our minds to it.
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.