You are not logged in.
The worlds fastest commercial supercomputer has been launched by computer giant IBM. The latest number cruncher is capable of operating at so called petaflop speeds the equivalent of 10[sup]15[/sup] calculations per second.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6241566.stm
The first supercomputer capable of crunching through a thousand trillion mathematical operations every second has been announced by IBM. This is roughly equivalent to the combined processing power of a 2.4-kilometre-high pile of laptop computers.
http://www.newscientisttech.com/article … puter.html
Last edited by JaneFairfax (2007-06-28 00:19:38)
Offline
Thats a lot of laptops!
Good job IBM, but Sun is on your heels: http://www.computerworld.com/action/art … rc=hm_list
"The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..." - Leon M. Lederman
Offline
It's a Shame it still wont be able to answer the Ultimate Question! " WHY " ?
A.R.B
Offline
It's a Shame it still wont be able to answer the Ultimate Question! " WHY " ?
Why?
"The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..." - Leon M. Lederman
Offline
i think anythony brown means, you know, the big why's. Why are we here, what does life mean, etc etc.
A logarithm is just a misspelled algorithm.
Offline
And I want to know "why" it can't answer "why"
"The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..." - Leon M. Lederman
Offline
The Reason A Computer will never be able to Answer the Question "WHY"
Is because........" A HUMAN KNOWS THE ANSWER! WITHOUT KNOWING "WHY"
A.R.B
Offline
That only begs the question: What is the answer? And if you say 42, I'm going to slap you.
"In the real world, this would be a problem. But in mathematics, we can just define a place where this problem doesn't exist. So we'll go ahead and do that now..."
Offline
There's still a way to make a computer faster (theoretically). The name of the concept is a "quantum computer". It would work in the following (general) way:
You have a bunch of subatomic particles, corresponding to a binary code.
You do not observe these from the outside of the machine during the whole process.
You give the particles a jolt of electricity such that you cannot be sure, unless you check, whether they have switched direction.
The idea is that, since you don't know what state the particles are in (spinning one way or the other), they can be in both. Using this "fact", the computer then does the calculations programmed at the same time, for any possible combination. This is most useful for cryptography.
Unfortunately, nobody seems to be able to make a quantum computer, but several people have already made programs that would work for such a processor, confident that someone will manage to make a Q.C.
"Knowledge is directly proportional to the amount of equipment ruined."
"This woman painted a picture of me; she was clearly a psychopath"
Offline
actually theyve got working devices with a small number of qubits, its just increasing the number, and the qubit logic gate devices that are yet to be made
The Beginning Of All Things To End.
The End Of All Things To Come.
Offline
Really? They actually managed to make a small quantum computer? Impressive.
Like I said, people started writing programs for them before they were made, which isn't very logical, or easy.
"Knowledge is directly proportional to the amount of equipment ruined."
"This woman painted a picture of me; she was clearly a psychopath"
Offline
The answers to Why are simple:
1. Because
2. Why not?
Boy let me tell you what:
I bet you didn't know it, but I'm a fiddle player too.
And if you'd care to take a dare, I'll make a bet with you.
Offline
To which you could also respond with a second statement of 'why?' which could cause a loop. Unless the user is smart enough to realise that.
Offline
For everyone else!!..............................................................................................................
The Reason A Computer will never be able to Answer the Question "WHY"
Is because........" A HUMAN KNOWS THE ANSWER! WITHOUT KNOWING "WHY"
A.R.B
Offline
Why?
Why did the vector cross the road?
It wanted to be normal.
Offline
To mathsyperson
Are you Human! if so! you should Know!
Last edited by Anthony.R.Brown (2007-07-01 01:09:10)
Offline
I think we got ARB stuck in a while loop. Did someone forget an equals sign and write:
while (post = notsubmitted)
Instead of:
while (post == notsubmitted)
"In the real world, this would be a problem. But in mathematics, we can just define a place where this problem doesn't exist. So we'll go ahead and do that now..."
Offline
Perhaps the Anthony.R.Brown we knew all along was in fact a bot, who has been programmed to respond differently to types of statements with certain/specified values in them?
Offline
I think we got ARB stuck in a while loop. Did someone forget an equals sign and write:
while (post = notsubmitted)
Instead of:
while (post == notsubmitted)
lol.. that reminds me. When I was learning java, i discovered that in java 1.5, the statement if (a = b) will no longer compile. I told my teacher and he litterally yelled "Alleluia!"
A logarithm is just a misspelled algorithm.
Offline
Really?!? I did most of my programming under 1.4, and perhaps a little under 1.5, but I don't think I ever tried to use such a statement.
So can you do any assignments in all in a conditional structure's condition? For example, would:
if ( (a = b) )
Work? Or something similar?
"In the real world, this would be a problem. But in mathematics, we can just define a place where this problem doesn't exist. So we'll go ahead and do that now..."
Offline
well the error it throws when you try to compile says (for instance) "found, int, required, boolean" so unlike previously, when any non zero value was true, its not considered a boolean expression unless you use boolean operators or boolean variables, and it demands that a boolean expresssion be placed inside the parenthesis.
All I can say is, its about time!
Last edited by mikau (2007-06-30 17:02:04)
A logarithm is just a misspelled algorithm.
Offline
that being the case, I'd assume a statement like if ( a = b == b = c) would work, but thats not likely to happen by accident. :-P
A logarithm is just a misspelled algorithm.
Offline
Division by Zero! still does Computers up!!
A.R.B
Offline
why would we want a computer to do division by zero?
A logarithm is just a misspelled algorithm.
Offline
To mikau
Quote:" why would we want a computer to do division by zero? "
A.R.B
Exactly! Normally we would not! but sometimes Calculations end up dividing Zero in a certain way! and the result is the computer CRASHES!!
I would say it is the Biggest reason why Windows and other operating systems CRASH!!
And within other software are also Prone to CRASH!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genius Is Noticed! But Refused Acceptance! By Persons With Academic Liability's!......................
Last edited by Anthony.R.Brown (2007-07-02 23:33:08)
Offline