Talk:Billiard-ball computer

The Emperor's New Mind
I removed the link to Penrose's "Emperor's New Mind" as a source at the beginning of the article, because that book principally concerns other matters than the billiard ball computer. A better source is the original Fredkin-Toffoli paper cited later in the article. I also added links to reversible process and reversible computingCharlesHBennett (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Billiard-ball computer. Favonian (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Billiard ball computer → Billiard-ball computer – which was the article title before SMcCandlish (talk) (contributions) moved Billiard-ball computer to Billiard ball computer over redirect because "Title doesn't match article text.", on 29 October 2011‎. Per MOS:HYPHEN, use a hyphen to link related terms in compound modifiers, i.e., to distinguish billiard ball computer from billiard ball computer. I can update the article text to use hyphens, and more articles link to Billiard-ball computer than Billiard ball computer. Would like to have a consensus before editing Wikipedia for consistent use of the term across articles. —Wbm1058 (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support. The early papers on the subject seem to be split on whether or not to use the hyphen — I think Bennett used the hyphen but Fredkin and Margolus didn't. I don't think the incoming wikilink count means much, it probably reflects more the fact that the name was hyphenated here until the recent move. And I don't think the grammatical argument is very strong, because there's no common meaning of a "ball computer" for us to get confused about. So I don't think it much matters which of these two names we use. In the end, I lean towards restoring the hyphen in the name, but only because of WP:RETAIN. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. A case can be made for the form without hyphen. Both forms are found in published texts, with the non-hyphen form predominating. But as things stand, WP:HYPHEN makes a clear stylistic recommendation for the hyphen, and it is well supported in quality publishing. The guidelines at WP:MOS are set up exactly to help settle uncertainties of this kind – so that everyone can move on to more productive activity. We should implement them unless there is an overwhelming argument for overriding them. There is not, in the present case. N oetica Tea? 02:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support – and I presume Noetica didn't mean to say "against". Dicklyon (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dick. Fixed now; WP:MOS is unequivocally in favour of this hyphen. N oetica Tea? 07:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Thanks for the support.  You all haven't heard of the billiard ball-computer?  A digital camera hangs directly over the center of the pool table, and sends an image to a computer which analyzes the ball positions, recognizing the differences between solids, stripes and the 8-ball, and displays on a nearby flat-screen monitor its recommended shot with the best chance of sinking a ball.  Kind of like the bowling lanes that point to where the bowler should aim to get the spare.  I just made that up, hah!  But wouldn't be surprised to see someone sell this to bar owners looking for a competitive advantage over the bar down the street. -Wbm1058 (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.