Orionsarm.org

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-11-21 02:07pm

There are equal claims promoting the superiority of SW computers and noone has provided evidence of their superiority either. I have, however, pointed out that modern supercomputers could take care of the things that SW computers are known to do, with relative easy. considering the advancement of Oa computers over the next 300 years, its hard to find any way that SW computers are superior. Some displays of intelligences superior to humans in SW would be a firm arguement, but as it stands, SW apparently lacks. Theres also no hard numbers for SW while there are for OA, so arguing for SW is a safe thing, because theres no way to falsify stuff. People have ALREADY proposed offscreen computers which are superior to the onscreen computers, but this is supposition and unfalsifiable. Worthless theories. I could just as well say "well there might be transcendent computers in OA that can do infinity operations per second!" and thats just as valid, but I don't, because it's a bullshit answer.

I also said, nitram, that I was not in the discussion anymore because I have grown weary of the constant repitition.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-11-21 02:11pm

kojikun wrote:There are equal claims promoting the superiority of SW computers and noone has provided evidence of their superiority either. I have, however, pointed out that modern supercomputers could take care of the things that SW computers are known to do, with relative easy.

Name one computer that can accurately model every object in the Galaxy's movement, as this is required for hyperspace calculations.

You can whine about repetition, but guess what? If you don't back up your claims, yes, people will repeat themselves, because you haven't refuted anything.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2003-11-21 02:40pm

kojikun wrote:I have, however, pointed out that modern supercomputers could take care of the things that SW computers are known to do, with relative easy.

Only if you're lying. In Wedge's Gamble, data transfers of "trillions of exabytes" worth of transactions occur each day. Assuming that was accomplished over the course of the entire day would require, at a very conservative minimum, 10 yottahertz. It's very conservative because the data transfer took place at night, and had to be fast, and performing the transactions over the course of the day would require much more computational power than simply transferring data.

A modern supercomputer can't do that in any timeframe that we'd consider reasonable.

Theres also no hard numbers for SW while there are for OA, so arguing for SW is a safe thing, because theres no way to falsify stuff.

Wedge's Gamble provides some numbers to work with to provide some nice lower limits on capability.

People have ALREADY proposed offscreen computers which are superior to the onscreen computers, but this is supposition and unfalsifiable. Worthless theories.

Actually, they are falisfiable. You evidentally have no knowledge of computer science.

If, for example, you could show that an O(n^2) algorithm is more complex than required and that the plans could be analyzed, say, using an O(n * log n) algorithm, then you'd be able to cut down the workload on my problem. Or you could show that 900 exabytes is more storage than required for the plans by showing a more efficient way to store them. (On the other hand, things may go the other way... estimating the algorithm as O(n^2) may be too conservative, and a proper analysis may require O(n^3) or even O(2^n) (eek!). Or whoever estimated 900 exabytes may have been too conservative.)

(O(x) is big-O notation and gives the overall complexity of the algorithm. Something that's, O(n^2), for instance, squares the workload as the data doubles.)

I could just as well say "well there might be transcendent computers in OA that can do infinity operations per second!" and thats just as valid, but I don't, because it's a bullshit answer.

No, it wouldn't, because there's no evidence. On the other hand, we have evidence about the size of the DS and we know they were analyzed very quickly. Based on its size, we can get a rough estimate of how much storage space that would take up (those who work with CAD or someone who designed CAD software should have a decent feel for how much would be required). We can also estimate the complexity of the analysis algorithm involved and tie that with the amount of data to get a minimum systems requirement to analyze the plans. That's the job of computer scientists and software engineers.

Calling it invalid because you don't understand it is, well, invalid...

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-11-21 02:40pm

and they havent refuted any of my non-figure arguements either. we're both arguing from the same non-figure sides. if you would like to provide some numbers on how many calculations are performed by navicomps, be my guest. but you've provided no evidence of your own, so i've had to guesstimate. thats not my fault, its yours for not providing your own evidence.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-11-21 02:42pm

kojikun wrote:and they havent refuted any of my non-figure arguements either. we're both arguing from the same non-figure sides. if you would like to provide some numbers on how many calculations are performed by navicomps, be my guest. but you've provided no evidence of your own, so i've had to guesstimate. thats not my fault, its yours for not providing your own evidence.

Sorry, Kojikun, but if you're going to make the claim, you have to provide the proof. You made the claim OA computers are superior, so show us the proof.. No more of your no-math mentality, thank you oh so kindly.. and put it up. Or, alternately, name a real world computer that can keep, in realtime, the position of every notable objects in the Galaxy.

Since you claimed it could be done.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-11-21 02:48pm

Mad wrote:Only if you're lying. In Wedge's Gamble, data transfers of "trillions of exabytes" worth of transactions occur each day. Assuming that was accomplished over the course of the entire day would require, at a very conservative minimum, 10 yottahertz. It's very conservative because the data transfer took place at night, and had to be fast, and performing the transactions over the course of the day would require much more computational power than simply transferring data.

A modern supercomputer can't do that in any timeframe that we'd consider reasonable.

Ahh, real numbers. Thank you. Well, in that case then you're right. I've not read anything about SW, so this changes things.

Wedge's Gamble provides some numbers to work with to provide some nice lower limits on capability.

Now I know that, and theres little point in my arguing that modern supercomputers could handle it now.

No, it wouldn't, because there's no evidence. On the other hand, we have evidence about the size of the DS and we know they were analyzed very quickly. <snip> .. Calling it invalid because you don't understand it is, well, invalid...

I was referring to someones arguement that just because we have no evidence beyond the movies of what computers can do doesn't mean that there aren't faster computers. Whoever said it was basically saying that even tho the movies in the computer had x abilities, theres no evidence against computers with abilities far great.

*sigh* here we go again.

ok, so yeah, modern supercomputers couldnt do it, because as you've shown the data transfer rates are enormous.

but even with those data rates, the yotta hertz computers are 10000 years old compared to "modern" OA AIs. while here in the real universe we cannot continue increasing our processing power, in OA they can, and they also have singularities, in which change starts occuring at ridiculously faster rates.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2003-11-21 03:54pm

kojikun wrote:Hokay, I got Alan to reply to the debates. He was going to resgister, but because of the paypal thing, he can't. So I'm acting as proxy:

Whoa, wait, what paypal thing? Last I checked, you don't have to give Mike money in order to register for the forums...what difference does the donation button make?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-11-21 04:04pm

You know, it's hard to take something seriously when it praises itself as realistic, but masturbates to nanotech so hard they'll need to invent the stuff just to heal their calloused dicks. Nevertheless, I'm slogging through the Encyclopedia Galactica to see if it'll cough up something measurable in any manner.

So far, I've found the following:

They rate the power of an AI by the level of technology their society has acheived. I wonder what they'd rate a species who can alter the mass of an object without losing any of it as.

Every reference to the AI's reads like propaganda. Like, worse than TNG as propaganda for the Federation.

Despite Kojikun's claims, no reference of any advance on processing power past the Yottahertz level is made, despite the timeline it is mentioned on extending another three thousand years(It denoted every other jump, usually taking 50-70 years between). This is possibly explained by the nanoswarm era(*VOMIT*), where a dark age settled over the galaxy, eternally retarding such development.

My god, the nanotech wanking burns my brain.

Apparently, you can have a hyperturing AI with sub-THz processing.

The propaganda theory gains strength: The AI's have been ruling since the dark age period. Keep in mind that while references are made to superior power, they are also made in reference to vastly larger AI's, raging from planetary in scale, to interstellar in size(WTF? I hope they just mean collosal objects).

Oh, no more nanotech. Now it's picotech.

More propaganda. The AI Gods are as high as you can get.

Ah, direct contradiction to Koji's claims. For the past five thousand years "evolution has primarily developed "outwards" (colonising new expanses of space) rather than "upwards"'. So much for infinite progression.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-11-21 04:25pm

Hotfoot wrote:Whoa, wait, what paypal thing? Last I checked, you don't have to give Mike money in order to register for the forums...what difference does the donation button make?

In order to prevent TK dickheads from messing with us, Mike made it so that any person registering using a free email account must make a donation as a sign of sincerity.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-11-21 04:34pm

Nitram: just a small nitpick: humans are turing grade, and our brains are nanotech based AND run at a very slow rate (significantly slower then electronic systems). the word hypersonic means 5x+ the speed of sound, so all you'd need is a system that has a processing speed of over 5 times that of our brains and you have, I would suppose, a hyperturing.

I think you're confusing OA's AI nanotech with things like nanofacturing technology (which they do indeed wank about). Nanotech actually CAN be used for computing (and there are designs for just that in the works) but the systems would end up being radically different then current processors and more similar to biological systems.

But thats not the point.

I'm just going to let it go that theres no hard evidence of present OA processing capabilities, tho if picotech processors have equivalent speeds as nanotech processors, they would be able to be packed 1bn times denser and in effect be 1tn times more powerful. Anyways, you can have the argument, Nitram.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-11-21 04:36pm

agh shit, the picotechs would only be 1bn times more powerful. i was thinking picotech, AND the next order of magnitude higher like the AI history. gah. apple-ogies

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-11-21 04:37pm

kojikun wrote:I think you're confusing OA's AI nanotech with things like nanofacturing technology (which they do indeed wank about). Nanotech actually CAN be used for computing (and there are designs for just that in the works) but the systems would end up being radically different then current processors and more similar to biological systems.

No, it includes nanotech manufacturing and other such ridiculous things; I've just gone through the encyclopedia. The nanoswarms are particularly offensive. I won't, however, deny it can be damn useful for processing(It being required to reach the only true limits on computation).

But thats not the point.

I'm just going to let it go that theres no hard evidence of present OA processing capabilities, tho if picotech processors have equivalent speeds as nanotech processors, they would be able to be packed 1bn times denser and in effect be 1tn times more powerful. Anyways, you can have the argument, Nitram.

Thank you. While they may well be able to make computers the size of solar systems that are more powerful than an R2, that simply says they've wasted a system for a big brain. Amusingly, going by their tech-scale listings, SW is Godtech. You know, equal to the Wormhole Nexus.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-11-21 04:43pm

SirNitram wrote:No, it includes nanotech manufacturing and other such ridiculous things; I've just gone through the encyclopedia. The nanoswarms are particularly offensive. I won't, however, deny it can be damn useful for processing(It being required to reach the only true limits on computation).

The nanofacturing is indeed BS. I won't deny that anything beyond processing is pure wank.

Thank you. While they may well be able to make computers the size of solar systems that are more powerful than an R2, that simply says they've wasted a system for a big brain. Amusingly, going by their tech-scale listings, SW is Godtech. You know, equal to the Wormhole Nexus.

well, a yottahertz processor would be significantly more powerful then a human brain, and R2 is clearly not as capable as a human. His storage capacity is rather high tho, so thats likely some molecular storage. I think the computers the size of solar systems are not solid computers but rather very loosely congolmerated nodes, tho if they are indeed solid computers the size of a solar system then the processing power would be enormous. Just.. ridiculously high.

If we assumed that the yottahertz procs are equivalent in size to modern processors, then using picotech they'd be 1bn times denser. Multiplied enough times to fill a solar system and..

But thats not possible, because the mass would collapse into a black hole. :

:

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-11-21 04:48pm

kojikun wrote:
Thank you. While they may well be able to make computers the size of solar systems that are more powerful than an R2, that simply says they've wasted a system for a big brain. Amusingly, going by their tech-scale listings, SW is Godtech. You know, equal to the Wormhole Nexus.
well, a yottahertz processor would be significantly more powerful then a human brain, and R2 is clearly not as capable as a human.

Show why he is not as capable as a human. He can calculate hyperjumps in moments; would you like me to do a conservative estimate on how many bytes it takes to store an accurate model of the Galaxy for that? It's going to close in on Exabytes very quickly, necessitating YHz processing.

A reminder, Koji. Intelligence is not the only measuring stick of processing power.

His storage capacity is rather high tho, so thats likely some molecular storage. I think the computers the size of solar systems are not solid computers but rather very loosely congolmerated nodes, tho if they are indeed solid computers the size of a solar system then the processing power would be enormous. Just.. ridiculously high.

No doubt.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-11-21 05:38pm

SirNitram wrote:Show why he is not as capable as a human. He can calculate hyperjumps in moments; would you like me to do a conservative estimate on how many bytes it takes to store an accurate model of the Galaxy for that? It's going to close in on Exabytes very quickly, necessitating YHz processing.

A reminder, Koji. Intelligence is not the only measuring stick of processing power.

True, but current estimates for the processing power of the human brain exceed 10^24 operations per second, I believe. Possibly by an order of magnitude or two. Supposedly this comes from the fact that our brains use minute chemical signalling to process which allows for elements to be extremely small, and carry out many operations simultaneously.

No doubt.

Ok, so modern processors are about 10mm on a side and 1mm thick, right? a picotech processor would be ~1bn denser then a nanotech processor of that size, which itself is approximately 10^15 times more powerful then todays processors. so we've got something the size of a modern processor thats 10^24 times more powerful then current processors. Roughly. With a volume of 100 mm^3 ~ 10^-7 m^3. A moonbrain is ~ 8E18 m^3 so thats 8E25 of these processors, giving is an amazing total of uh.. 8E49 times modern processor speeds. The earth simulators NEC processors run at 500MHz and get 8GFLOPS, so thats ~ 16FLOPS/Hz/processor. A YHz processor of modern size and picotech density should get 1.6E34 FLOPS. A moon brain would get ~ 1.3E60 FLOPS.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2003-11-21 05:54pm

The problem of having something the size of a moon is that it takes time for data transfer... sure, it can compute a lot of data at once, but then it has to contend with the speed of light to access more data to continue working on the problem. That would be a major bottleneck at the sizes you're talking about, especially when individual processors are so small. (We'd have to see a heirarchial structure where groups of processors form a cluster which report to higher clusters to manage data, or something along those lines.)

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-11-21 05:57pm

You're forgetting the Moon Brain would need power sources, data storage, transmittors, and a shitload of other things, not just processors upon processors.

In any case, I prefer to number crunch demonstrated capabilities as opposed to blindly assuming nothing is lost in scaling. To give an example, an Astromech or Navicomp must store data on everything that it might need to plot a course around.

From the Ep II ICS, there are 300,000,000 stars in the Naboo sector. Ignoring all canon info about Naboo being a minor sector, we'll assume this is average.(1e8)

There are 1,000 sectors in Known Space.(1e11)

Using the real solar system as a guide, it seems safe to say there's at least a hundred objects worth keeping an eye on; depending on the tolerances of hyperdrive, it may skyrocket above that.(1e13)

Now one just has to work out how much it takes to analyze each one. Using the Earth Simulator's total peak performance as a benchmark, of 10TFLOPS(1e13), we get a total power of a commercial astromech or navicomp as 1e26FLOPS. These things have been around forever and are commercial products. This, of course, is based on known capabilities, not blindly assuming one can simply pile processors together with no loss of efficiency.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-11-21 06:05pm

SirNitram wrote:You're forgetting the Moon Brain would need power sources, data storage, transmittors, and a shitload of other things, not just processors upon processors.

Processors are fragine. At this scale--nanoprocessors or whatever they call them--particularly so. There would need to be an enourmous infrastructure within the processing moon just to keep the processors from crushing themselves, nevermind the need to interconnect them in a meaningful way and provide/distribute/dissipate energy.

XaLEv · Post by **XaLEv** » 2003-11-21 06:06pm

Some stuff I found.

http://www.orionsarm.com/eg/w/Wo-Wz.html#wormhole_bus
http://www.orionsarm.com/tech/archailec ... cture.html

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-11-21 06:10pm

SirNitram wrote:You're forgetting the Moon Brain would need power sources, data storage, transmittors, and a shitload of other things, not just processors upon processors.

I was justing guesstimating

In any case, I prefer to number crunch demonstrated capabilities as opposed to blindly assuming nothing is lost in scaling. To give an example, an Astromech or Navicomp must store data on everything that it might need to plot a course around.

From the Ep II ICS, there are 300,000,000 stars in the Naboo sector. Ignoring all canon info about Naboo being a minor sector, we'll assume this is average.(1e8)

There are 1,000 sectors in Known Space.(1e11)

Using the real solar system as a guide, it seems safe to say there's at least a hundred objects worth keeping an eye on; depending on the tolerances of hyperdrive, it may skyrocket above that.(1e13)

Ok. Makes sense, I suppose.

Now one just has to work out how much it takes to analyze each one. Using the Earth Simulator's total peak performance as a benchmark, of 10TFLOPS(1e13), we get a total power of a commercial astromech or navicomp as 1e26FLOPS.

Where did that come from? EarthSim's averaged total is 38TFLOPs [http://www.top500.org/lists/2003/11/1/]. How did you derive an astromechs computing power?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-11-21 06:14pm

kojikun wrote:
Now one just has to work out how much it takes to analyze each one. Using the Earth Simulator's total peak performance as a benchmark, of 10TFLOPS(1e13), we get a total power of a commercial astromech or navicomp as 1e26FLOPS.
Where did that come from? EarthSim's averaged total is 38TFLOPs [http://www.top500.org/lists/2003/11/1/]. How did you derive an astromechs computing power?

Assume it can duplicate EarthSim(I must have found outdated numbers, pardon) for every notable object in the Galaxy, and run the numbers. This is rather required to avoid hitting anything, and is rather conservative; for example, I ignore that Naboo is a small sector, or that the limit for a 'safely ignorable' object may be so low that there are tens of thousands of objects in a system worth noting(Oort and asteroid fields), and so on.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-11-21 06:22pm

Who says you need to have EarthSim power for EACH object? What reasoning is there for this?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-11-21 06:25pm

kojikun wrote:Who says you need to have EarthSim power for EACH object? What reasoning is there for this?

What standard would you suggest? One must know a multitude of factors for each and every object to accurately model both it's movement and it's influence on Hyperspace. I am using one standard here, but the equations are child's play; Prove another more reasonable and plug it in.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-11-21 07:17pm

SirNitram wrote:What standard would you suggest? One must know a multitude of factors for each and every object to accurately model both it's movement and it's influence on Hyperspace. I am using one standard here, but the equations are child's play; Prove another more reasonable and plug it in.

Thats a guess tho. An unsubstantiated one at that. You can't just arbitrarilly pull shit out of the air.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-11-21 07:28pm

kojikun wrote:
SirNitram wrote:What standard would you suggest? One must know a multitude of factors for each and every object to accurately model both it's movement and it's influence on Hyperspace. I am using one standard here, but the equations are child's play; Prove another more reasonable and plug it in.
Thats a guess tho. An unsubstantiated one at that. You can't just arbitrarilly pull shit out of the air.

It's a standard for measuring the activities of a planetary body; that's not unsubstantiated at all. There's nothing arbitrary about it; my earlier estimates which I was going to throw out(1GFLOP for a planet) would be pulled out of the air.

If you don't like it, Kojikun, provide reasoning to throw it out.