Ha! "Science piction" movies. When subtitled. — Cornwell1
What's the difference between = and :=? Say f(x)=x2f(x)=x2 and f(x):=x2f(x):=x2. And what's the difference with ≡, "identical to"? — Cornwell1
And what's the difference with ≡, "identical to"? — Cornwell1
Perhaphs jgill, can offer better insight here, than I. — universeness
Anyway, never mind, my question is, did the earlier computers, such as ENIAC, not operate on binary digits? Shannon's paper was published in 1948 and ENIAC commenced operations in 1945. My knowledge of maths and computer science is rudimentary but I'm finding it hard to imagine how computers could operate on anything other than binary digits — Wayfarer
(leaving aside quantum computers, which I know I'll never fathom). — Wayfarer
I'm finding it hard to imagine how computers could operate on anything other than binary digits — Wayfarer
I've never heard of Claude Shannon, — universeness
That top reference hits the nail right on the head. — Wayfarer
'The ENIAC required 30 vacuum tubes to store the decimal 128. Ten for the 1, ten for the 2 and ten for the 8. In addition, it had to turn on 11 tubes.'
No wonder it was so enormous! :yikes: — Wayfarer
they just use Qbits which have three states instead of two (the third state is based on quantum entanglement, so the system is still basically binary). — universeness
The miniaturization improvements are really to do with the hardware, e.g., billions of transistors on a chip compared to the space required for vacuum tubes. — Andrew M
I remember reading quite some years ago that a 'musical christmas card' - the type that plays a tinny carol when you open it - contains more computing processing power than existed in the world in 1946. — Wayfarer
Numbers can be stored in a binary representation about 3 times more efficiently than in a decimal representation ( — Andrew M
but a potentially infinite number of superposition states — Andrew M
Numbers can be stored in a binary representation about 3 times more efficiently than in a decimal representation (since 2^3 is approximately 10), so 999 (1111100111 in binary) would require 10 vacuum tubes. The miniaturization improvements are really to do with the hardware, e.g., billions of transistors on a chip compared to the space required for vacuum tubes — Andrew M
You need 30 tubes for all decimals 1-999 though and only 10 for the binary version. Is that last to which you refer? — Cornwell1
but a potentially infinite number of superposition states
— Andrew M
Isn't the number of superimposed states 2^n, where n is the number of electrons entangled? — Cornwell1
999 could be stored using 3 of the 'state 9' tubes. — universeness
I'm referring to the different states that a single qubit can be in. Every point on the surface of the Bloch sphere (where the sphere represents a qubit) is a potential (pure) state. — Andrew M
After a measurement the state tends to evolve to a state with both up and down equally present. — Cornwell1
There are only 2 states involved in the computing. — Cornwell1
There potentially infinite states, that's true, but you make it sound if this infinity is part of the computing power. — Cornwell1
After measurement, the spin state will be definitely up or down, and not in superposition. — Andrew M
Yes, but there are 30 tubes in total, compared to 10 tubes for binary. See the ENIAC example link in my initial post. — Andrew M
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.