Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:51:37 01/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2005 at 16:06:42, Duncan Roberts wrote: >On January 24, 2005 at 12:41:43, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On January 24, 2005 at 12:35:56, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>Time for yet another retraction. Since a square centimeter gives 1e12 bytes, a >>cubic centimeter is only 1e18 bytes. So a cubic meter is 1e18*100*100*100 = >>1e24 bytes. Not bad, but a long way to go to store a chess tree. > >so in cubic kilometers 1e24 * 1000, * 1000 * 1000 = 1e33 bytes. > >assume 1e48 for all positions so 1e15 cubic kilometres needed or a cube of 2.5 >by 2.5 of crystal should do the trick. You probably made the same mistake that I did. 1e48/1e33=1e15 cbrt(1e15) = 1e5 The cube would have to be 100,000 kilometers on a side. Bigger than the volume of the earth, I'm afraid.
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.