Talk:Limits of computation

Copied
Article copied in it's entirety from another article. 24.89.87.41 10:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This too long limitations of computer Abahsh dixit (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Time?
No mention on limits on what we could have computed by this this point because some things take longer that the current age of the universe to calculate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.211.5 (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Computronium
Article is copied entirely from Computronium, and this should really be a redirect there. Noting the above post that has gone unresponded and the sparse linkings to this page, I see this has a fitting move. If nobody chimes in against this move within a few days time, I will make the move. jugander (t) 00:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just checked this. The pages have now diverged enough, and I think they each deserve their own page. "Computronium" is less well defined than "limits of computation": it can refer to that or programmable matter, and has also been used in fiction to refer any computing substrate (even if not at the limits of computations). Please let me know if you disagree; I don't have a strong stance on this. --Mati Roy (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The Last Question
Would a link from here to The_Last_Question be appropriate? After all, the final computer in that story represents _the_ limit to computation, doesn't it? --Lasse Hillerøe Petersen 17:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Comparison with actual hardware
Please try to make comparisons with actual modern computer hardware on all of these. We use millions of times as much energy as the Landauer limit, for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.67.219 (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Chaos theory?
The article stated that:
 * Chaos theory dictates that in any computational system the limit of dissonance must not exceed the level of static.

This makes no obvious sense, and the Chaos theory article has no mention of "dissonance", or of "static", or of limits to computation. I removed the statement. If anyone can find a respectable citation, this should be added. 86.130.245.253 (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Schlock's law
"Schlock's law is a concept developed after the Rangel curve bound of level computation..." - there are no references I can find in the literature to anything like this. Rangel does have papers about some limits in cognitive science, but these have nothing to do with the kind of computational limits discussed here. I suggest this claim should be removed. Anders Sandberg (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't find anything either, and it was added in the same edit as the chaos-theory nonsense mentioned above. I zorched it. Elwoz (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Needs mention of simpler limits to computation
The limits mentioned involve advanced physics, but a simple limit is omitted: irreversible computation generates heat throughout a volume, but heat must be removed through the surface. Seymour Cray, designer of the CDC 7600 and other super computers, cited heat removal as one of the hardest problems. Evidence that it is still a problem? Lap top computers warm your lap. oldrider (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Limits of computation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cs.usu.edu/~degaris/essays/femtotech.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080807173904/http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/QM/lloyd_nature_406_1047_00.pdf to http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/QM/lloyd_nature_406_1047_00.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)