Comments on: Programming the Universe http://72.249.21.88/nonintersecting/2007/01/25/programming-the-universe/ Life and Technology (non-intersecting) Fri, 05 Dec 2008 03:17:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Ben Tremblay http://72.249.21.88/nonintersecting/2007/01/25/programming-the-universe/#comment-5816 Ben Tremblay Fri, 09 Mar 2007 02:53:18 +0000 http://wanderingbarque.com/nonintersecting/2007/01/25/programming-the-universe/#comment-5816 My Buddhist teacher would giggle at "quantum computer". (In 1990 I showed him slides of fractals a buddy at Cornel SuperComputer sent me ... he thought they were pretty sweet, then launched into an extemporare on non-linearity!) I have to wonder, reading this: why "quantum" and not "chaotic"? Dynamical stability is where it's at. (I groked that in the 70s, talking to a PhD who specialized in crystalization ... metals, formation of ice, like that.) Do we ever want slots that are as rigid as electrons' orbits? Make the human beings fit the machine? Seems wrong-headed to me. BTW: In the BEA paper I was just reading on SOA I kept coming across such as the need for buy-in, and heroes, and excellent team-players ... nothing "quantum" in that! My Buddhist teacher would giggle at “quantum computer”. (In 1990 I showed him slides of fractals a buddy at Cornel SuperComputer sent me … he thought they were pretty sweet, then launched into an extemporare on non-linearity!)

I have to wonder, reading this: why “quantum” and not “chaotic”? Dynamical stability is where it’s at. (I groked that in the 70s, talking to a PhD who specialized in crystalization … metals, formation of ice, like that.)

Do we ever want slots that are as rigid as electrons’ orbits? Make the human beings fit the machine? Seems wrong-headed to me.

BTW: In the BEA paper I was just reading on SOA I kept coming across such as the need for buy-in, and heroes, and excellent team-players … nothing “quantum” in that!

]]> By: Pete http://72.249.21.88/nonintersecting/2007/01/25/programming-the-universe/#comment-2930 Pete Fri, 26 Jan 2007 21:19:26 +0000 http://wanderingbarque.com/nonintersecting/2007/01/25/programming-the-universe/#comment-2930 <b>Scott:</b> I've only stumbled on this recently - as in yesterday. But according to the linked page, the answer is roughly yes. Roughly because, and I quote: "Conventionally, the complexity of software programs is measured in terms of the number of lines of software code or the central processing unit (CPU) time." But this is considered simplistic, as you and I might implement the same algorithm, say a Quicksort, and you might do it in 30 LOC where I might need 50, but ultimately the information content is the same. However, the information content of a system is really defined as whether it meets the functional requirements. Since more code is likely to have more bugs, and thus not meet the functional requirements, it is likely that the fewer the lines of code, the lower the information content, and thus the lower the complexity and a greater likelihood of success. Scott: I’ve only stumbled on this recently - as in yesterday. But according to the linked page, the answer is roughly yes. Roughly because, and I quote: “Conventionally, the complexity of software programs is measured in terms of the number of lines of software code or the central processing unit (CPU) time.” But this is considered simplistic, as you and I might implement the same algorithm, say a Quicksort, and you might do it in 30 LOC where I might need 50, but ultimately the information content is the same.

However, the information content of a system is really defined as whether it meets the functional requirements. Since more code is likely to have more bugs, and thus not meet the functional requirements, it is likely that the fewer the lines of code, the lower the information content, and thus the lower the complexity and a greater likelihood of success.

]]> By: Scott Walters http://72.249.21.88/nonintersecting/2007/01/25/programming-the-universe/#comment-2924 Scott Walters Fri, 26 Jan 2007 19:06:05 +0000 http://wanderingbarque.com/nonintersecting/2007/01/25/programming-the-universe/#comment-2924 I guess in programming "information content" would roughly translate into volume of source code text. So it is saying that the less source code you have to use to do a particular job, the higher the quality? I guess in programming “information content” would roughly translate into volume of source code text. So it is saying that the less source code you have to use to do a particular job, the higher the quality?

]]>