Talk:Indeterminacy in concurrent computation: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:46, 5 October 2005

Revision as of 14:25, 19 October 2005

Line 19:

This is indeed curious. First of all the above abstract talks about synchronizers instead of arbiters. Does the article explain the difference? Not much confusion exists about the practical importance of metastability for arbiters. Conventional arbiters unavoidably show metastable behavior in principle and also in practice, if properly designed. The metastability of properly designed arbiters has been measured and well qualified many times in the literature. Is this article informed about the literature? Has anyone ever cited this article? Thanks,--[[User:CarlHewitt|Carl Hewitt]] 21:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

==POV label==

I slapped the POV label on this article for the following reasons:

# This article appears to be about quantum indeterminacy in electronic circuits, and not in computation in general.

# This article fails to mention competing theories for the cause of that indeterminacy.

# This article fails to mention the experimental status of the various competing theories.

# The references given appear to have nothing to do with the actual subject of the article.

Please note that this very same issue has already been argued on the talk page to [[metastability in electronics]], which has now been moved to [[arbiter (electronics)]] (that is, see [[Talk:arbiter (electronics)]].) [[User:Linas|linas]] 14:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)