Re: processors of the future: super-computer-on-a-chip?
- From: "Peter Dickerson" <first{dot}surname@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 06:57:41 GMT
"Del Cecchi" <delcecchiofthenorth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4mrjo3F7i7otU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Peter Dickerson" <first{dot}surname@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:UyONg.23343$8V4.17693@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Del Cecchi" <cecchinospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messageThat ball most certainly has a boundary, in that x=y=z =1 (or 2 for that
news:4moe0lF6q912U3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Peter Dickerson wrote:
"Alex Colvin" <alexc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ee529j$g8h$2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Well, lets drop the universe having a center thing... Although,
the
exact
place in space and time where the big bang "was called into
existence"
could
arguably be the center? Na...
Since the big bang filled the entire universe, not just some part of
it,
that center would be everywhere.
While I can agree with the conclusion (or that there is no well
defined
centre) I can't agree with the logic. Just because air fills an
entire
balloon doesn't mean that the centre is everywhere.
How can you have a center if there is no boundary? And there was no
space and time until the big bang, or until the Lord said "let there
be
light" depending on your preference.
While I don't have any argument with the cosmology i feel I must
nitpick.
Consider the ball (x,y,z) with x²+y²+z² < 1. This ball doesn't not have
a
boundary, at least not that is part of the ball. But it does have a
centre.
So you can most definitely have a centre without a boundary.
I must also nitpick about 'until', a concept that only exists after the
big
bang.
Peter
Well, I assume you didn't quite mean a single point. Presumably you meant
x²+y²+z² = 1. And no, 2 would not be on the boundary - at least not in my
(mathematical) understanding of the word.
matter) is outside the ball. So if you are playing semantic games by the
fact that the "boundary doesn't exist because < allows infinitesimals.
bah.
If the boundary you describe is not part of the ball then it is not a ball
with boundary. Similarly if you are say that there is a boundary to the ball
in a larger space in which the ball is embedded then that possibility also
applies to the universe. Whether the universe is embeeded in a larger (or
higher dimensional) space is probably moot, because if we could detect it
we'd include it as part of the universe.
Now, point at the region outside the universe, in three space.
This is meaningless, even without the three-space proviso. Outside? what's
that, a bit like before?
And, yes, many years ago I studied at the uni where Nick now is. However, I
studies mathematics, including cosmology, gen rel, topology etc so I'm
probably more pedantic than him! But it was a long time ago...
Peter
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: processors of the future: super-computer-on-a-chip?
- From: Del Cecchi
- Re: processors of the future: super-computer-on-a-chip?
- References:
- Re: processors of the future: super-computer-on-a-chip?
- From: Chris Thomasson
- Re: processors of the future: super-computer-on-a-chip?
- From: Chris Thomasson
- Re: processors of the future: super-computer-on-a-chip?
- From: Eugene Miya
- Re: processors of the future: super-computer-on-a-chip?
- From: Chris Thomasson
- Re: processors of the future: super-computer-on-a-chip?
- From: Ketil Malde
- Re: processors of the future: super-computer-on-a-chip?
- From: Peter Dickerson
- Re: processors of the future: super-computer-on-a-chip?
- From: Del Cecchi
- Re: processors of the future: super-computer-on-a-chip?
- From: Peter Dickerson
- Re: processors of the future: super-computer-on-a-chip?
- From: Del Cecchi
- Re: processors of the future: super-computer-on-a-chip?
- Prev by Date: Re: processors of the future: super-computer-on-a-chip?
- Next by Date: Re: what is the minimal Instruction set of a microprocessor ?
- Previous by thread: Re: processors of the future: super-computer-on-a-chip?
- Next by thread: Re: processors of the future: super-computer-on-a-chip?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|