Author: Duncan Roberts
Date: 15:42:07 01/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2005 at 16:51:37, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. thanks for the correction. are you still hoping to see this in your life time ? duncan
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.