Talk:Indeterminacy in concurrent computation: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:09, 4 April 2006

Revision as of 04:41, 1 July 2006

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)

Indeterminacy seems to be suggested by Godel's proof that mathematical systems cannot prove themselves. This occurs in practice where diagnosis of a failing machine is extremely difficult without an external system of test intruments. And the nature of information being entropy, a purely statistical measure, suggests that one of the reasons computer software fails particularly when it is very large programs, is that the meaning of one bit in the context of the whole must be close to perfectly consistent with the whole when the whole system exists in a thermodynamic environment in which entropy is also an important measure. Seems best to

leave the article simply described as controversial.

==POV label==