2^N (2 to the power of N)

[John Cuthber]

 

 

More like candle > lightbulb > 1,000 * times all the stars in the observable universe.

Delivered before breakfast tomorrow.

[fredreload]

Hmm, after thinking about it 2^1100 is the max number we have to work with here since all we have to do is identify individual neuron to see what kind of electronic gate component it resembles. For instance it could be an Or gate or and And gate. It is just a gate with 1100 inputs or outputs. After that we can combine it with other gates to form integrated circuit. Then we have the output of the gate such as anger, joy, sadness form by integrated circuit. Is decoding by the outputs available an easier way? (like Transcendence the move?) Can't really say

Edited June 26, 2016 by fredreload

[Endy0816]

Or gate very roughly. Future advances in parallel processing could solve the time issue.

[fredreload]

I'm looking at it similar to computer architecture. I'd imagine consciousness to be similar to an operating system constantly polling for inputs or interrupts. If someone has an idea on how operating system is stored in the hardware, boot up through BIOS, loaded, how it operates, and how it check for interrupts such as keyboard or mouse, feel free to let me know. I took an operating system course back in university, just that I didn't have much clues back then.

[Thorham]

You continue to pretend that your idea (that it was ever going to be possible) has any validity.

 

Stop telling me I pretend anything, I don't pretend. I have an opinion about this, and if you don't agree with it, too effiing bad. I think that in a million years we're going to be so advanced that we look like less than microbes today, and that counting that high will indeed be easy. Don't agree? I couldn't care any less if I tried.

 

Are you beginning to get a grip on how big this number is, and how wrong you were?

 

At least get the number right when pointing fingers. It's 10^82 not your much larger number.

 

I already admitted to making a mistake, what more do you want?

Edited June 26, 2016 by Thorham

[John Cuthber]

 

Stop telling me I pretend anything, I don't pretend. I have an opinion about this, and if you don't agree with it, too effiing bad. I think that in a million years we're going to be so advanced that we look like less than microbes today, and that counting that high will indeed be easy. Don't agree? I couldn't care any less if I tried.

 

 

At least get the number right when pointing fingers. It's 10^82 not your much larger number.

 

I already admitted to making a mistake, what more do you want?

"I already admitted to making a mistake, what more do you want?"

I'd like you to do it again.

Because the number that the OP originally asked about was 2^1100 which is about 10^331

Perhaps you could stop pretending that you know what you are on about.

[Thorham]

I'd like you to do it again.

 

Not gonna happen buddy boy.

 

Because the number that the OP originally asked about was 2^1100 which is about 10^331

 

Yeah, and the number I used in my super computer example was 10^82, which is what all this bs is about. Perhaps you should re-read that so you know why I gave that number as an example.

 

Perhaps you could stop pretending that you know what you are on about.

 

Me? No, YOU are wrong. YOU are twisting the whole thing to make it seem as if I said that 10^331 can be practically counted to. I NEVER said or implied that All I've said about 10^331 is that it's not practically possible now, and I never said we'll be able to do it in the future.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Thorham

[fredreload]

The fastest supercomputer is in China which does computing at about 33.86 petaflops per second (3.386*10^16).

Ionno man, I'd observe based on the outputs, like record outputs for an entire day. But how in the world do you even know what that output is just from the logic gates without being that person? Like I'm feeling sad right now because it is running through the or gate, that's some crazy integrated circuit I'm telling you 0000 = sad, 0001 = happy, 0002 = angry, 0003 = love. So right, even if you get the states you still need to get the functions, like two half adders adds the number together, anyone knows how to get that function just from the logic gates?

Edited June 26, 2016 by fredreload

[John Cuthber]

Yeah, and the number I used in my super computer example was 10^82, which is what all this bs is about.

I wonder where that number came from- oh yes, I remember now.

 

2^ 1100 is a lot more than there are particles in the known universe.

Counting to it is impossible.

And your reply was

 

That's not relevant.

 

 

It's not impossible in principle. It's just not practically manageable. In fact, any finite number can be counted to in principle.

Well, you were the one who dismissed 10^82 as irrelevant.

Now you are insisting it's the important number.

 

As for "It's not impossible in principle. It's just not practically manageable. In fact, any finite number can be counted to in principle."

​Well, actually it turns out that it is impossible. the universe isn't big enough.

 

So, after you wrote of 10^82 as "irrelevant" you still thought that - in spite of the fact that the OP didn't ask about it- it was the one that mattered.

 

But, since the it's never going to be practical for us to count to either of these big numbers, your pretence that it would is still laughable.

[fredreload]

I figured out that you can compare the inputs and outputs of a neuron to find the function of the gate. A 2 inputs 1 output or gate would have an input of 00 to get an output of 0 and 01 or 11 to get an output of 1. So by comparing the inputs and outputs of a gate you can find out what the gate does, but can you tell the function of the gate by looking at the adder circuit here(Answer:it adds two binary numbers together)? How about from the inputs and outputs alone, figure out both what it does and its functions here from two inputs and one output(Right, the second way makes more sense in solving the function).

Edited June 26, 2016 by fredreload

[TakenItSeriously]

I ran into a similar problem of integers getting too large a long time ago. The first program I ever wrote in fact, I think I was a junior in highschool so it must have been 1981 and I was on one of the first macintosh computers, no HD but state of the art 31/4 floppies though ;-)

 

I was trying to use a single database that could be devided into into multiple databases where any recored could be in 1 to n databases and I didn't want to have any redundant records.

 

I assigned a prime number to each smaller DB and each record was assigned a multiple of the primes for the DBs they were assigned to. Then any DB would contain only those records where the mod of the multiple was 0.

 

The problem was I was limited to n=10 I think, before the integer became too large if a record was in all n databases. I never figured out a way around that limit, but then there was no internet back then either.

 

I recently ran into a similar issue with perfect numbers when I ran out of significant figures in Excel. VBA could work as well. Any ideas on getting around this problem would be appreciated.

[Thorham]

Well, you were the one who dismissed 10^82 as irrelevant.

Yes, I did, after which I used it as an example to try and show that numbers like that are irrelevant.

 

Now you are insisting it's the important number.

 

In the context of my example, which was relevant, it is.

 

Well, actually it turns out that it is impossible. the universe isn't big enough.

 

The visible universe isn't, but the visible universe doesn't say anything about the size of the actual universe.

 

So, after you wrote of 10^82 as "irrelevant" you still thought that - in spite of the fact that the OP didn't ask about it- it was the one that mattered.

 

The OP didn't ask about it, no, but I had already explained why it isn't feasible in my first post.

 

But, since the it's never going to be practical for us to count to either of these big numbers, your pretence that it would is still laughable.

 

And that's where you're potentially wrong, because no one knows how small things can ultimately be made. Assuming atoms are the smallest units that you can use to fabricate things, it indeed seems impossible, but I'm counting on the possibility that they're not the limit. Obviously, only time will tell.

[John Cuthber]

Incidentally, synapses aren't strictly binary in the way that logic gates are, so, at best , the calculation will lead to a very approximate model of reality.

Yes, I did, after which I used it as an example to try and show that numbers like that are irrelevant.

 

In the context of my example, which was relevant, it is.

 

The visible universe isn't, but the visible universe doesn't say anything about the size of the actual universe.

 

The OP didn't ask about it, no, but I had already explained why it isn't feasible in my first post.

 

And that's where you're potentially wrong, because no one knows how small things can ultimately be made. Assuming atoms are the smallest units that you can use to fabricate things, it indeed seems impossible, but I'm counting on the possibility that they're not the limit. Obviously, only time will tell.

So, you are suggesting the OP uses "magic that we don't have yet".

I can't express how pleased I imagine they will be with that.

(and you may have noticed- but conveniently ignored the fact that I initially stated the known universe.)

 

The point remains; the OP is asking someone to count to 2^1100.

The known universe isn't big enough to do that in any way that we know about.

 

(And that's what makes the number of particles in the known universe relevant to the problem.- we have to solve it in the known universe).

 

If you could have shown us that it's reasonable to see how we could count to 10^82, that would be interesting- but it still doesn't get us to 2^1100 or anything remotely close.

And your claim that we can count to 10^82, which might as well say "The unicorns will help us" isn't much good from the OP's point of view is it?

[fredreload]

Google has given me the idea to plot the adder circuit as a chart, god they are geniuses(or maybe John came up with it). Anyway it seems the adder circuit can be converted to a 2 dimensional chart here. Then there could be a 3 dimensional or higher dimensional chart for other functions

Edited June 26, 2016 by fredreload

[Thorham]

So, you are suggesting the OP uses "magic that we don't have yet".

 

No, I'm not, and if you read my first post, then you'd know that. Our argument revolves around my incorrect claim that super computers can count to 10^82, which you've already shown to be incorrect. Of course, our whole argument has nothing to do with the OP's question, but that's another matter altogether.

 

The point remains; the OP is asking someone to count to 2^1100.

 

To which I replied that the program to do that is really easy to write (add+carry), but that it's not practical because it takes to long to run.

 

And your claim that we can count to 10^82

 

My current claim is that it may be possible in the future depending on whether or not you can build things that are smaller than atoms (MUCH smaller), which we now obviously can't do. Like I said before, only time will tell if this is possible or not. I refuse to believe al sorts of things are impossible just because under our current knowledge it's impossible. Time and time again has this mind set proven to be wrong. What the limit is, I don't know.

 

Obviously none of this has anything to do with the OP's question, which I already answered in my first post, where I made not a single assumption about possible future technology, and where I never claimed that it's practical to do.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Thorham

[Mordred]

If your dealing primarily with adder circuits there is another methodology.

 

In binary devide and multiply by two operations can performed with fewer clock cycles by bit shift left or right instructions. This requires less clock cycles than multiply or devide operations. Though for the exponent value you asked about you will need to significantly need to add registers

Edited June 26, 2016 by Mordred

[John Cuthber]

 

No, I'm not, and if you read my first post, then you'd know that. Our argument revolves around my incorrect claim that super computers can count to 10^82, which you've already shown to be incorrect. Of course, our whole argument has nothing to do with the OP's question, but that's another matter altogether.

 

 

To which I replied that the program to do that is really easy to write (add+carry), but that it's not practical because it takes to long to run.

 

 

My current claim is that it may be possible in the future depending on whether or not you can build things that are smaller than atoms (MUCH smaller), which we now obviously can't do. Like I said before, only time will tell if this is possible or not. I refuse to believe al sorts of things are impossible just because under our current knowledge it's impossible. Time and time again has this mind set proven to be wrong. What the limit is, I don't know.

 

Obviously none of this has anything to do with the OP's question, which I already answered in my first post, where I made not a single assumption about possible future technology, and where I never claimed that it's practical to do.

Actually, your first reply "It's not practically possible unless you have an extremely large amount of time to wait for the program to complete. " suggests that it is possible; which is wrong.

This " Of course, our whole argument has nothing to do with the OP's question, "

Is absurd.

You might have been trying ti hijack the thread, but I wasn't.

My view position was that of trying to explain why your answer to the question was misleading. To suddenly claim that we were discussing Spanish fishing rights or something is begging the question.

"My current claim is that it may be possible in the future depending on whether or not you can build things that are smaller than atoms (MUCH smaller), which we now obviously can't do."

Or, as I described it "magic that we don't have yet".

[Thorham]

Actually, your first reply "It's not practically possible unless you have an extremely large amount of time to wait for the program to complete. " suggests that it is possible; which is wrong.

 

It doesn't suggest anything, it simply states things the way they are. If you have enough time you can do it, if not, you can't. Whether or not you can have enough time is something else. It should be clear from what I said that right now you can't do it. If you think I meant to say that it may be possible right now, then you misread my reply. The poster after me didn't seem to misread it, so it can't be al that unclear, now can it?

 

This: "Of course, our whole argument has nothing to do with the OP's question"

Is absurd.

Of course it isn't, see below.

 

You might have been trying ti hijack the thread, but I wasn't.

 

Neither was I.

 

My view position was that of trying to explain why your answer to the question was misleading. To suddenly claim that we were discussing Spanish fishing rights or something is begging the question.

 

You said this:

 

2^ 1100 is a lot more than there are particles in the known universe.

Counting to it is impossible.

And I disagreed. That's what the argument is about.

 

"My current claim is that it may be possible in the future depending on whether or not you can build things that are smaller than atoms (MUCH smaller), which we now obviously can't do."

Or, as I described it "magic that we don't have yet".

 

It doesn't matter. You say it's impossible, while you can't possibly know that. Only under current knowledge is it not possible. Whether or not it truly is impossible is unknown, and entirely irrelevant to the OP's original question, just like our argument.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Thorham

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

The OP asked how to do a computation. Please focus on that, and stop with the bickering.

[fredreload]

Hmm, the chart is used for visual analysis by the human for inputs and outputs. But even then it would be kind of hard to do it visually, I think some type of analysis needs to be made for the binaries for inputs and outputs to inspect its functions (amplification, signal of pain, or happiness). It is out of my scope for now, if you guys have more information on how analysis can be done for inputs and outputs do let me know, I just thought visualizing it is easier to tell instead of 0 and 1s, or maybe as numbers

Edited June 27, 2016 by fredreload

[fredreload]

Maybe some type of circuit verification technique? Something we learned in school can be applied here.

 

P.S. Right but memory is not stored as 0 and 1s, it's also stored as gates I think

Edited June 27, 2016 by fredreload

[fredreload]

Looks like these guys here are working on the same thing I'm going after. I wonder how they tell if a fish is happy

Edited June 29, 2016 by fredreload

[granpa]

It's not a programming class, but I'd like to explore the problem both from a programming perspective and mathmatical perspective. For programming, right pretty much as Endy's said, using the least amount of time and most efficient way to solve this huge problem, if solvable. For mathmatics I'm looking for a way to reduce this equation. The problem is about computation of neurons an its synapses for all possible states. Each synapse has a binary state of either on with electrical signal running or off with no signal running. The max number of synapses I found that connects to a single neuron is 1100 (one thousand and one hundred) synapses. Therefore with a possible on and off states this neuron would contain a total of 2^1100 states. Now if You stack this single neuron with another neuron, the states increment like this. Imagine another neuron with 5 synapses connect to it, it would have a total of 2^5 states. The total states of this neuron and the previous 1100 synapses neuron would be ( 2^1100 * 2^5 = 2^(1100+5) ). Now it's just a matter of adding another billion neurons and you have something like 2^(1100*1 billion) states if every neuron has 1100 synapses. I'm not sure if such a number is crunchable and if there is a way to reduce it. I'd like to hear what you guys think

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem