Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: quentron.com  (Read 1261139 times)

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2985 on: April 18, 2015, 09:10:28 PM »
Talking about speed.Here's something of interest:

(Nanowerk News) Switches are devices
that are omnipresent in computers as they
are crucial to manipulate information
encoded as bits. To greatly improve the
speed with which information is
processed, much work is being done
worldwide to realize optical switches that
control information encoded as light
pulses. To date, the speed of optical
switches is limited by the properties of the
underlying materials, but not by the speed
of light.
Now scientists from the MESA+ Institute
for Nanotechnology at the University of
Twente and the FOM-Institute Amolf in
Amsterdam in the Netherlands, and the
Institute for Nanoscience and Cryogenics
(CEA/INAC) in Grenoble in France have
managed to switch-on and switch-off a
semiconductor optical cavity within a
world-record short time of less than 1
picosecond, or one millionth of a millionth
second. The results will soon be published
in the leading American journal Applied
Physics Letters ("Ultimate fast optical
switching of a planar microcavity in the
telecom wavelength range " ), and are
expected to yield ultrafast optical data
communication, tiny on-chip light sources
and lasers, and perhaps even switches for
quantum bits of information.



memoryman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 758
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2986 on: April 18, 2015, 09:50:14 PM »
sarkeizen, YOU stated: " a) A theorem is different than a theory.  A theorem is a mathematical proof."
if you cannot understand that 'a statement', which is ALL a theorem is, is NOT proof by itself, then you may be a very dull knife indeed, likely the dullest in the drawer (at least the drawer that I am in).

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2987 on: April 18, 2015, 11:53:01 PM »
If I used the word 'sort' before then I was technicaly wrong,apologies,this is why I dislike mechanical representations of the demon.it REACTS instantaneously.reacts to energy demands.ok now?
Are you saying that Philip's machine can't sort?

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2988 on: April 18, 2015, 11:57:44 PM »
sarkeizen, YOU stated: " a) A theorem is different than a theory.  A theorem is a mathematical proof."
if you cannot understand that 'a statement', which is ALL a theorem is, is NOT proof by itself
So your argument is, effectively that the term "theorem" can NEVER in ANY CASE legitimately refer to a proof it can ONLY AND EVER refer to a statement?  :)

Just a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. :)

Aside: Is there a term for people who rely on Wikipedia for their education to the point of sounding stupid?  Wikipidiots? Moro-pedians?  Not sure if there's one in common use but someone should invent one if not.

memoryman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 758
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2989 on: April 19, 2015, 12:21:08 AM »
So your argument is, effectively that the term "theorem" can NEVER in ANY CASE legitimately refer to a proof it can ONLY AND EVER refer to a statement?  :)

Just a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. :)

Aside: Is there a term for people who rely on Wikipedia for their education to the point of sounding stupid?  Wikipidiots? Moro-pedians?  Not sure if there's one in common use but someone should invent one if not.
a simple "yes" or "no" may suffice for you; you did not say that it 'may refer to' but 'is'.
Aside: You assumed that I relied on Wikipedia; wrong again. I can give you other sources. Do YOU get to make up definitions?

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2990 on: April 19, 2015, 01:35:59 AM »
sarkeizen, YOU stated: " a) A theorem is different than a theory.  A theorem is a mathematical proof."
if you cannot understand that 'a statement', which is ALL a theorem is, is NOT proof by itself, then you may be a very dull knife indeed, likely the dullest in the drawer (at least the drawer that I am in).
A theorem is more than a mere statement.  It is a statement that has been proven.   

If we want to get really stick up the chair pedantic it is incorrect to call a theorem a mathematical proof.  It is not the proof proper.  It is the result of a mathematical proof. 

ETA: Coffee is for proof closers.  Whatever Sarkeizen may or may not be, he/she is definitely not a dull knife.

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2991 on: April 19, 2015, 02:18:58 AM »
Somehow over the course of my life I adopted the idea that words are defined by their use.  The way people use the term "theorem" is interesting.  While I agree the most common usage is referencing a statement.  However people - even mathematicians - do use it to reference the proof itself.  To wit people often say "X theorem proved that..." clearly the statement (even a proved one) is not the thing doing the proving.

Semantics aside if memoryman had actually took a few seconds to think about the context of my statement the objection seems even less relevant.  Lumen implies that a theorem and a theory are the same in the sense that a single observation disproves it.  While I might quibble on that statement itself as it implies that observations are never in error.  It's especially wrongheaded when you compare it with something like a proof.  If you were to observe something which runs counter to a proof it's far more likely that either your observation or interpretation is incorrect and switching from "theorem" meaning "proof" to "mathematically proved statement" doesn't alter that. :)

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2992 on: April 19, 2015, 08:35:18 AM »
Sarkeizen:'Are you saying that Philip's machine can't sort?'

It reacts,the result is a sort.react-sort in that sequence and only ever in that sequence.in the same way that throwing ammonium nitrate crystals into water causes it to cool,react(ionization/hydration)-cool(temperature drop below ambient). Please note that while these local (earthly) demons are react in such a way as to result in local entropy reduction the sun's entropy increases much more.nothing wrong with the 2lot,except kelvin statement.like holding a bucket under a waterfall and spontaneously catching some h2o.no big deal

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2993 on: April 19, 2015, 03:41:36 PM »
a simple "yes" or "no" may suffice for you; you did not say that it 'may refer to' but 'is'.
Because it is not necessary in English use. :)  To wit: A dog is a quadruped.  "dog" can refer to a worthless or contemptible person (m-w) without making any comment on their method of locomotion.  Now perhaps, in the linguistic police-state where you grew up they beat you with sticks unless you say "may refer to" in these cases but I assure you, the rest of the world is a (slightly) kinder place. :)

Also YOUR argument appeared to be "'a statement is ALL a theorem is" which only requires a single reasonable example of an alternate use to falsify.  Since you appear to implicitly agree that if I had said "may refer to" would have made my sentence correct.  You agree that your original argument was wrong. :)  Feel free to squirm on this a bit if it makes you feel better. :)
Quote
Aside: You assumed that I relied on Wikipedia
It seems likely.
Quote
I can give you other sources.
Sources for what?  So far you appear to veer toward and away from a few different arguments:

i) "'a statement is ALL a theorem is" - which you appear to agree is wrong.
ii) The word "theorem" can be used in other senses if and only if preceded by "can refer to" - this again seems to be an argument relying on arbitrarily applying a linguistic rule.
iii) You consulted more than one source to come to your conclusion in i) - This seems to be a disconnect between your premise and what would support it.  You could show me a hundred examples of a word being used or defined in a way but that doesn't say anything about what you relied on to make your decision.
iv) I am wrong in some other vague way which you have yet defined.
Quote
Do YOU get to make up definitions?
Sure, as long as I am clear about my use.  Everyone does, it's part of how language evolves.  However to answer the larger question: Did I make up a definition here?  Obviously not.  How I used "theorem" is common enough to be acceptable and does not appear to require any special language in use.

Now there are literally over a thousand posts from me.  It's likely I made an error in there somewhere.  Why not go through those and find one so you can feel better about all this. :)

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2994 on: April 19, 2015, 03:54:38 PM »
Quote from: me
Are you saying that Philip's machine can't sort?
It reacts,the result is a sort.
Is the sorting instantaneous?

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2995 on: April 19, 2015, 04:08:51 PM »
Sarkeizen:'Is the sorting instantaneous?'

Yeah.a few quadrillianths of a second inbetween react-sort

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2996 on: April 19, 2015, 04:27:55 PM »
To react is to sort in any demon's case.simultaneous

memoryman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 758
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2997 on: April 19, 2015, 05:01:56 PM »
Sarkeizen, you were wrong in your statement, as I pointed out; plain and simple.
How you reacted to that is interesting: instead of simply saying something like 'I could have phrased it better' or 'yes, you're right', you made it personal.
I corrected Simon Derricutt this week on a forum; his response was a simple 'thanks, Bill.
I don't usually point errors out; when I do it with the intent to have crystal clear communication that does not require inferring, guessing, reading between the lines etc.
This will be my last post on this particular exchange; there are better ways to spend my time.
Re"Now there are literally over a thousand posts from me.  It's likely I made an error in there somewhere.  Why not go through those and find one so you can feel better about all this." No, I enjoy your posts and they are usually enjoyable to read.

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2998 on: April 19, 2015, 08:12:52 PM »
Sarkeizen, you were wrong in your statement
I used a term in a way that it gets used all the time even by people in-field.  You seemed to agree that it is a correct usage (otherwise your statement about 'may refer to' would have been pointless) and now seem to backtrack to just asserting yourself as correct.  Perhaps because you lost your footing in your previous post? :)
Quote
, you made it personal.
Not really.  I asked you to clarify your position after sharing how my experience shaped my expectations for people who respond the way you did.  Funny, how my desire to understand your position is entirely absent from your analysis.
Quote
when I do it with the intent to have crystal clear communication that does not require inferring, guessing, reading between the lines etc.
LOL.  Really?  That's the line you're selling here?  Perhaps you can point out exactly where in this thread you displayed any obvious lack of understanding as to what I was communicating?  No?  In other words you didn't have to do any inferring, guessing or even reading between the lines.  Not to mention that unless your primary language is Lojban you are likely doing this ALL the time in ordinary conversation probably doing those very things many times in this exchange alone.
Quote
This will be my last post on this particular exchange; there are better ways to spend my time.
Perhaps you can, when you feel a bit better correct your position and be a bit more reasonable in the future?
Quote
No, I enjoy your posts and they are usually enjoyable to read.
Yours need some work. :)

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2999 on: April 19, 2015, 08:31:59 PM »
Quote from: me
Is the sorting instantaneous?
Yeah.a few quadrillianths of a second inbetween react-sort
So it's constantly getting slower then the more bits you add.