Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by Blurrr2 - "" |
|||
| (17 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=|
{{WikiProject Computer science}}
}}
== Testing integrated circuits – 2^308? ==
Line 11 ⟶ 13:
:::I absolutely agree. The source says "what we are saying is that 2^308 is greater than 10^93", which is not the case. Citing a source for something that is clearly wrong does not make it right. Anyway, the source still supports the statement: If 2^308 is transcomputational, then 2^309 is as well. I will go ahead and change it. --[[User:MarioS|MarioS]] ([[User talk:MarioS|talk]]) 14:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
[Not commenting on above (a factor of ten less is "practically" transcomputational I would think).]
What does this mean however: "Exhaustively testing all combinations of an integrated circuit with 309 inputs and 1 output requires testing of a total of 2<sup>309</sup> combinations of inputs." I know most ''gates'' have far fewer inputs but whole chips have more "inputs" however (and more outputs). I think the number of outputs doesn't matter (more no less difficult), but can we say that testing all "realworld chips" (more pins/inputs) is impossible? Chips have structure and would this only apply in general but not for actual chips? [[User:Comp.arch|comp.arch]] ([[User talk:Comp.arch|talk]]) 11:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
:It is an upper limit with the assumption that you know nothing about the chip being tested. Imagine that 16 of those inputs connect internally to a 16-input exclusive or gate. Once you have tested the 2^16 input combinations and confirmed that the xor gate works, you can reduce those 2^308 combinations to 2^293. likewise, you don't need to test for every memory cell interfering with every other memory cell. You can just test the ones that are close to each other and ignore the possibility that a memory cell affects another memory cell on the other side of the die (and nothing else). --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 20:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
== Quantum Computing ==
It seems quantum computing technology will take off within maybe 50 years. A quantum computer with 500 bits can simultaneously simulate all the possible configurations of a regular computer with 2^500 bits. This should be mentioned somewhere in the article. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Blurrr2|Blurrr2]] ([[User talk:Blurrr2|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Blurrr2|contribs]]) 17:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:That's not how quantum computing works. Not only does quantum computing not make everything magically O(1), not all algorithms speed up in the same way: see [[post-quantum cryptography]] for some discussion. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] ([[User talk:The Anome|talk]]) 19:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
:: Even if not all programs benefit from the speed-up when run on a quantum computer.. it does show that this "transcomputational problem" term won't age well and may become inacurate and a source of confusion in the future. I'm really just refering to the <math>2^{93}</math> number. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2F04:405:D600:F516:46B1:9C42:4FA2|2A02:2F04:405:D600:F516:46B1:9C42:4FA2]] ([[User talk:2A02:2F04:405:D600:F516:46B1:9C42:4FA2#top|talk]]) 19:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== "Any number greater than 10^93 is called a transcomputational number" ==
The page currently opens with "a transcomputational problem is a problem that requires processing of more than 10^93 bits of information", then says, "[a]ny number greater than 10^93 is called a transcomputational number". Is this consistent? If we're talking about processing information in excess of 10^93 bits, I might expect the label "transcomputational number" apply to those numbers greater than 2^(10^93). It seems worth clarifying the discrepancy between "n bits" and "n", or correcting the description in some other way. [[Special:Contributions/73.249.223.44|73.249.223.44]] ([[User talk:73.249.223.44|talk]]) 19:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
:check the sources and update accordingly? · · · [[User:Omnissiahs hierophant|Omnissiahs hierophant]] ([[User talk:Omnissiahs hierophant|talk]]) 17:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
::The sources are not NPOV. I'm deleting the sentence until someone presents an second source that is not the sole author of this slop.
::The emperor is naked!
::--[[Special:Contributions/78.54.20.144|78.54.20.144]] ([[User talk:78.54.20.144|talk]]) 09:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
== fringe theory // "utter bollocks" // delete ==
See above. I don't see any relevance for a single persons delusions.
--[[Special:Contributions/78.54.20.144|78.54.20.144]] ([[User talk:78.54.20.144|talk]]) 09:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
| |||