From: slerna@hotmail.com (Shadrach's Lump) Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: 12 Aug 2003 11:19:20 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 19 Message-ID: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.187.156.154 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1060712361 11072 127.0.0.1 (12 Aug 2003 18:19:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Aug 2003 18:19:21 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148410 In the second book of the Uplift Storm trilogy, David Brin vaguely describes a kind of primitive computer. To quote: "There I learned about analog computation with mechanical components, wich actually had a brief ascendancy on Earth, using many of the same techniques we see in URiel's ball of spinning glass." It is described as being made of glass parts, including disks, that whirl and spin and ripple, in cosntant motion. It's unclear whether it is made entirely out of glass, but it can be used Can anyone tell me more about this 'glass computer', or recommend any good websiites or books about it? And for any tinkerers who might know, how easily could such a machine be built? What would it be likely to cost? ###### From: Brooks Moses Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.composition Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 12:08:50 -0700 Organization: Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University Lines: 72 Message-ID: <3F393B42.4E43B43C@cits1.stanford.edu> References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dnab42a5a2.stanford.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.Stanford.EDU 1060715400 18756 171.66.165.162 (12 Aug 2003 19:10:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@news.stanford.edu X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed.stanford.edu!shelby.stanford.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148380 [crossposts trimmed; followups set to r.a.sf.composition. Be aware, Shadrach, that some news servers delete messages that are excessively crossposted on account of most of them being spam; yours just barely missed the cutoff on mine.] Shadrach's Lump wrote: > In the second book of the Uplift Storm trilogy, David Brin vaguely > describes a kind of primitive computer. > > To quote: > > "There I learned about analog computation with mechanical components, > wich actually had a brief ascendancy on Earth, using many of the same > techniques we see in URiel's ball of spinning glass." > > It is described as being made of glass parts, including disks, that > whirl and spin and ripple, in cosntant motion. It's unclear whether it > is made entirely out of glass, but it can be used > > Can anyone tell me more about this 'glass computer', or recommend any > good websiites or books about it? I strongly suspect that the "actually had a brief ascendancy on Earth" refers only to the bit about devices that do analog computation with mechanical components, not to the the specifics of being made of glass parts etcetera. On this planet, metals are much more likely materials. To start with, there's what looks like a good introductory article on the subject of real-world mechanical computers here, and it has a couple of references including a book in online PDF form: http://scientific-computing.com/scwmayjun03computingmachines.html In addition, there are some more pictures of the MIT Differential Analyzer (built in the 1930s) here: http://web.mit.edu/mindell/www/analyzer.htm The author of that page has a book, which is immediately going on my wish list: http://www.press.jhu.edu/press/books/titles/s02/s02mibe.htm This machine (or one very like it) made a cameo appearance in the "When Worlds Collide" movie of 1951; there's a tiny MPEG of its scene here: http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/bushdiffann.html The predecessors of the integration units in the above devices are "planimeters", which calculate the area of a curve when one moves a stylus around it. Some good pictures (without much description, unfortunately) of one are here and at the pages it links to: http://www-db.stanford.edu/pub/voy/museum/pictures/display/4-4-Planimeter.htm > And for any tinkerers who might know, how easily could such a machine > be built? What would it be likely to cost? Since these are analog devices rather than digital, the accuracy of the devices is directly related to the accuracy with which they are constructed. This implies using high-precision machining techniques that go somewhat beyond what an average machining shop is capable of, and these devices are not low in parts-count. I would imagine a cost of many tens of thousands of dollars (at least) for something equivalent to the MIT Differential Analyzer, down to maybe three or four hundred dollars for an exceptionally basic planimeter. If you just want the device for show and don't care about accuracy, figure maybe 15% to 25% of those prices, and also figure that you may well get cases where the errors amount to something that's quite visibly wrong. If you want to built one out of glass -- well, it's certainly possible, and may even have advantages with regards to not getting tiny bits of corrosion that affect the results. (It might also have thermal stability advantages; I'm not sure.) Start looking at the costs of grinding glass wheels to precisions of half a thousanth of an inch, and see what technology exists for that.... - Brooks ###### From: "Ash Wyllie" Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: 13 Aug 03 14:43:54 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <989.355T2724T8835096@lr.net> References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 26 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148502 Gently extracted from the mind of Niall McAuley; >"Shadrach's Lump" wrote in message >news:47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com... >> "There I learned about analog computation with mechanical components, >> wich actually had a brief ascendancy on Earth, using many of the same >> techniques we see in URiel's ball of spinning glass." >It doesn't say glass computers had a brief ascendancy, it says >analog computers did, which is true. The machines at Bletchley >Park during WWII which were used to help break the German Enigma >codes are an example. I thought that the crypto computers, along with some ballistic computers built in the early 40s were the first digital computers. Analog computers were popular for scientific calculations for a long time. Prolly into the 60s. And there was an analog econometric computer built some time ago. It used water IIRC. -ash for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX ###### From: shoppa@trailing-edge.com (Tim Shoppa) Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: 12 Aug 2003 17:47:28 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 9 Message-ID: References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.73.218.144 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1060735649 27587 127.0.0.1 (13 Aug 2003 00:47:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Aug 2003 00:47:29 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!feed.news.nacamar.de!uio.no!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148496 slerna@hotmail.com (Shadrach's Lump) wrote in message news:<47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com>... > It is described as being made of glass parts, including disks, that > whirl and spin and ripple, in cosntant motion. ^^^^^^ Ripple? Wrong newsgroup. All flowing-glass discussions go in alt.folklore.urban Tim. ###### From: "Niall McAuley" Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:35:46 +0100 Organization: Ericsson Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: v20119c.eei.ericsson.se X-Trace: newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se 1060763714 29843 159.107.165.156 (13 Aug 2003 08:35:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@ericsson.se NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 08:35:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!skynet.be!skynet.be!news.algonet.se!'newsfeed1.telenordia.se'!algonet!uab.ericsson.se!erinews.ericsson.se!news.ericsson.se!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148505 "Shadrach's Lump" wrote in message news:47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com... > "There I learned about analog computation with mechanical components, > wich actually had a brief ascendancy on Earth, using many of the same > techniques we see in URiel's ball of spinning glass." It doesn't say glass computers had a brief ascendancy, it says analog computers did, which is true. The machines at Bletchley Park during WWII which were used to help break the German Enigma codes are an example. -- Niall [real address ends in com, not moc.invalid] ###### Message-ID: <3F3A4988.ED9AE6E1@yahoo.com> From: CBFalconer Reply-To: cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net Organization: Ched Research X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 26 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:38:27 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.90.168.120 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1060785507 12.90.168.120 (Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:38:27 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:38:27 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!nf3.bellglobal.com!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148441 Niall McAuley wrote: > "Shadrach's Lump" wrote in message > > > "There I learned about analog computation with mechanical > > components, wich actually had a brief ascendancy on Earth, > > using many of the same techniques we see in URiel's ball of > > spinning glass." > > It doesn't say glass computers had a brief ascendancy, it says > analog computers did, which is true. The machines at Bletchley > Park during WWII which were used to help break the German > Enigma codes are an example. When you consider that holding a value to 1/2% required something like 8 flip-flops, involving at least 8 6SN7's (gobbling 8 x 0.3A x 6.3V or 15.12 Watts for heater alone) or the equivalent for digital mechanisms, while the storage medium could be a 50 cent capacitor for an analog mechanism, you can see why analog was the more common. -- Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. USE worldnet address! ###### From: jacklinthicum@earthlink.net (Jack Linthicum) Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: 13 Aug 2003 10:23:53 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 25 Message-ID: <7164002b.0308130923.6b87ece6@posting.google.com> References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <3F3A4988.ED9AE6E1@yahoo.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.189.145.174 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1060795435 3587 127.0.0.1 (13 Aug 2003 17:23:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Aug 2003 17:23:55 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.bme.hu!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148492 CBFalconer wrote in message news:<3F3A4988.ED9AE6E1@yahoo.com>... > Niall McAuley wrote: > > "Shadrach's Lump" wrote in message > > > > > "There I learned about analog computation with mechanical > > > components, wich actually had a brief ascendancy on Earth, > > > using many of the same techniques we see in URiel's ball of > > > spinning glass." > > > > It doesn't say glass computers had a brief ascendancy, it says > > analog computers did, which is true. The machines at Bletchley > > Park during WWII which were used to help break the German > > Enigma codes are an example. > > When you consider that holding a value to 1/2% required something > like 8 flip-flops, involving at least 8 6SN7's (gobbling 8 x 0.3A > x 6.3V or 15.12 Watts for heater alone) or the equivalent for > digital mechanisms, while the storage medium could be a 50 cent > capacitor for an analog mechanism, you can see why analog was the > more common. Navy OCS had many sessions on gunnery computers, big hairy aluminum things which slid back and forth as various values were fed into them. Subs used them for torpedo attack after about 1943, this time cranking dials. ###### From: Lon Stowell Reply-To: lon.stowell@comcast.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 20 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.240.77.188 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: sccrnsc03 1060797817 12.240.77.188 (Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:03:37 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:03:37 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:03:37 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn14feed!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!sccrnsc03.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148444 Approximately 8/13/03 01:35, Niall McAuley uttered for posterity: > "Shadrach's Lump" wrote in message news:47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com... >> "There I learned about analog computation with mechanical components, >> wich actually had a brief ascendancy on Earth, using many of the same >> techniques we see in URiel's ball of spinning glass." > > It doesn't say glass computers had a brief ascendancy, it says > analog computers did, which is true. The machines at Bletchley > Park during WWII which were used to help break the German Enigma > codes are an example. For some types of problems the analog computers were so superior in speed and close enough in accuracy. e.g. fire control systems, impact prediction. Solution time was virtually instantaneous as soon as input was finished... accuracy issues easily handled by volume of fire, adding more powder, or using human sensors to resolve. ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <989.355T2724T8835096@lr.net> Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,alt.folklore.computers Organization: UC Santa Cruz CIS/CE From: eugene@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) NNTP-Posting-Host: sundance.cse.ucsc.edu Message-ID: <3f3a823f$1@news.ucsc.edu> Date: 13 Aug 2003 11:23:59 -0800 X-Trace: 13 Aug 2003 11:23:59 -0800, sundance.cse.ucsc.edu Lines: 39 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!news.ucsc.edu!eugene Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148442 In article <989.355T2724T8835096@lr.net>, Ash Wyllie wrote: >Gently extracted from the mind of Niall McAuley; >>"Shadrach's Lump" wrote in message >>news:47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com... >>> "There I learned about analog computation with mechanical components, >>> wich actually had a brief ascendancy on Earth, using many of the same >>> techniques we see in URiel's ball of spinning glass." > >>It doesn't say glass computers had a brief ascendancy, I still hope for digital optical computing. Analog optical computing is still in use. That majority of these bits are carried on fiber (communications not computing), but some logic gets used. >>it says analog computers did, which is true. The machines at Bletchley >>Park during WWII which were used to help break the German Enigma >>codes are an example. > >I thought that the crypto computers, along with some ballistic computers built >in the early 40s were the first digital computers. Turing Bombes were not computers. It is arguable that Colossus was. I just received yet another book on the ABC vs. ENIAC. >Analog computers were popular for scientific calculations for a long time. >Prolly into the 60s. And there was an analog econometric computer built some >time ago. It used water IIRC. The Comp. Hist. Museum has a nice collection of analog machines starting with slide rules (important to understanding more complex analog machines). Non-linear dynamics got a big initial with analog machines in 1980-70s, but I doubt that you would get the numeric precision you would for Feigenbaum's constant. And then there is Hillis' tinker toy computer. One news group reduced. ###### From: derekl1963@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons) Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:05:35 GMT Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <3f3b9991.3319697@supernews.seanet.com> References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 26 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148485 "Niall McAuley" wrote: >It doesn't say glass computers had a brief ascendancy, it says >analog computers did, which is true. The machines at Bletchley >Park during WWII which were used to help break the German Enigma >codes are an example. None of the machines at Bletchley were analog. The Bombes, while special purpose rather than general purpose, were a mix of digital and analog. The Colossus was strictly digital, even if not a general purpose machine. D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to om@io.com, as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. ###### Message-ID: <3F3AD133.DA4F7E8F@ev1.net> From: Charles Richmond Reply-To: richmond@ev1.net Organization: Canine Computer Center X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <3F3A4988.ED9AE6E1@yahoo.com> <7164002b.0308130923.6b87ece6@posting.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 19 NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.241.15.59 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: rwcrnsc53 1060812268 12.241.15.59 (Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:04:28 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:04:28 GMT Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:04:28 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn14feed!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc53.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148541 Jack Linthicum wrote: > > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] > > Navy OCS had many sessions on gunnery computers, big hairy aluminum > things which slid back and forth as various values were fed into them. > Subs used them for torpedo attack after about 1943, this time cranking > dials. > You can get information on the submarine analog targeting computer at: -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net | +----------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### From: derekl1963@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons) Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 02:07:24 GMT Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <3f3aeeb1.5002598@supernews.seanet.com> References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <3F3A4988.ED9AE6E1@yahoo.com> <7164002b.0308130923.6b87ece6@posting.google.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 32 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148525 jacklinthicum@earthlink.net (Jack Linthicum) wrote: >Navy OCS had many sessions on gunnery computers, big hairy aluminum >things which slid back and forth as various values were fed into them. >Subs used them for torpedo attack after about 1943, this time cranking >dials. The last analog descendent of the TDC didn't leave service until the USS Kamehameha and her Mk 113 FCS left the fleet in 2003. (Unless, and it's extremely unlikely, the USS Parche still has her Mk 113 rather than the Mk 117.) The Mk 113 was a hybrid of digital and analog, but it's Mk ___ Position Keeper was a direct descendant of the TDC. The 688 and 726 classes were the first post WWII class to built with an all digital FCS. (Mk 117 and Mk 118 respectively.) The Permits and Sturgeons were built with MK 113s, but were later modified to MK 117. D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to om@io.com, as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. ###### X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 68.147.131.211 From: Brian Inglis Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Organization: Systematic Software Reply-To: Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca Message-ID: References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <989.355T2724T8835096@lr.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 32 Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 04:53:47 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.71.223.147 X-Complaints-To: abuse@shaw.ca X-Trace: news3.calgary.shaw.ca 1060836827 24.71.223.147 (Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:53:47 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:53:47 MDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!residential.shaw.ca!news3.calgary.shaw.ca.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148543 On 13 Aug 03 14:43:54 -0500 in alt.folklore.computers, "Ash Wyllie" wrote: >Gently extracted from the mind of Niall McAuley; > > >>"Shadrach's Lump" wrote in message >>news:47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com... >>> "There I learned about analog computation with mechanical components, >>> wich actually had a brief ascendancy on Earth, using many of the same >>> techniques we see in URiel's ball of spinning glass." > >>It doesn't say glass computers had a brief ascendancy, it says >>analog computers did, which is true. The machines at Bletchley >>Park during WWII which were used to help break the German Enigma >>codes are an example. > >I thought that the crypto computers, along with some ballistic computers built >in the early 40s were the first digital computers. > >Analog computers were popular for scientific calculations for a long time. >Prolly into the 60s. And there was an analog econometric computer built some >time ago. It used water IIRC. Analog computers were used in hybrid couplings with digital computers for signal processing until the 1980s at a PPOE. Good for Q&D modelling of control systems. Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada -- Brian.Inglis@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca) fake address use address above to reply ###### From: hawk@slytherin.ds.psu.edu (Dr. Richard E. Hawkins) Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 00:50:07 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Penn State University, Center for Academic Computing Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <989.355T2724T8835096@lr.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: slytherin.ds.psu.edu X-Trace: f04n12.cac.psu.edu 1060908607 9794 146.186.61.46 (15 Aug 2003 00:50:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@f04n12.cac.psu.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 00:50:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) Originator: hawk@slytherin.ds.psu.edu (Dr. Richard E. Hawkins) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!news.ems.psu.edu!news.aset.psu.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148580 In article <989.355T2724T8835096@lr.net>, Ash Wyllie wrote: >Analog computers were popular for scientific calculations for a long time. >Prolly into the 60s. And there was an analog econometric computer built some >time ago. It used water IIRC. Oh, dear. The "hydraulic Keynesians." They made the analogy of the economy to water flowing through a path. Government "pump-priming" could raise the level (this thinking neglected the fact that the gov't had to take the water from someone, and merely put it back . . .). Lots of these were made for classroom use as a demonstration, but I"ve never heard of one being made for actual computation. hawk, economist -- Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign dochawk@psu.edu Smeal 178 (814) 375-4700 \ / against HTML mail These opinions will not be those of X and postings. Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \ ###### From: Warrick M. Locke Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:05:11 -0500 Organization: E. Coyote Enterprises, Inc. Message-ID: References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <989.355T2724T8835096@lr.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.60 X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 24 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-out1.nntp.be!propagator2-sterling!news-in-sterling.newsfeed.com!tdsnet-transit!newspeer.tds.net!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148598 In article , hawk@slytherin.ds.psu.edu says... > In article <989.355T2724T8835096@lr.net>, Ash Wyllie wrote: > > >Analog computers were popular for scientific calculations for a long time. > >Prolly into the 60s. And there was an analog econometric computer built some > >time ago. It used water IIRC. > > Oh, dear. The "hydraulic Keynesians." They made the analogy of the > economy to water flowing through a path. Government "pump-priming" > could raise the level (this thinking neglected the fact that the gov't > had to take the water from someone, and merely put it back . . .). > > Lots of these were made for classroom use as a demonstration, but I"ve > never heard of one being made for actual computation. > > hawk, economist > I don't know about econometric modeling, but aerodynamics researchers used water tables extensively until the Eighties or so. -- Regards, Ric ###### From: "Julian Flood" Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:28:34 +0100 Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <989.355T2724T8835096@lr.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.78.68.141 X-Trace: newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk 1060954187 29084 81.78.68.141 (15 Aug 2003 13:29:47 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Aug 2003 13:29:47 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148597 "Dr. Richard E. Hawkins" > >Analog computers [] > >time ago. It used water IIRC. > Lots of these were made for classroom use as a demonstration, but I"ve > never heard of one being made for actual computation. HM Treasury? JF ###### From: Lon Stowell Reply-To: lon.stowell@comcast.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <989.355T2724T8835096@lr.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 52 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.240.77.188 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net 1061000675 12.240.77.188 (Sat, 16 Aug 2003 02:24:35 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 02:24:35 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 02:24:35 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news-out1.nntp.be!propagator2-sterling!news-in-sterling.nuthinbutnews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!wn14feed!wn13feed!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148649 Approximately 8/15/03 15:10, David Powell uttered for posterity: > In article , > Brian Inglis in > alt.folklore.computers wrote: > >>On 13 Aug 03 14:43:54 -0500 in alt.folklore.computers, "Ash >>Wyllie" wrote: >> >>>Gently extracted from the mind of Niall McAuley; >>> >>> >>>>"Shadrach's Lump" wrote in message >>>>news:47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com... >>>>> "There I learned about analog computation with mechanical components, >>>>> wich actually had a brief ascendancy on Earth, using many of the same >>>>> techniques we see in URiel's ball of spinning glass." >>> >>>>It doesn't say glass computers had a brief ascendancy, it says >>>>analog computers did, which is true. The machines at Bletchley >>>>Park during WWII which were used to help break the German Enigma >>>>codes are an example. >>> >>>I thought that the crypto computers, along with some ballistic computers built >>>in the early 40s were the first digital computers. >>> >>>Analog computers were popular for scientific calculations for a long time. >>>Prolly into the 60s. And there was an analog econometric computer built some >>>time ago. It used water IIRC. >> >>Analog computers were used in hybrid couplings with digital >>computers for signal processing until the 1980s at a PPOE. >>Good for Q&D modelling of control systems. >> > > > Analogue computers didn't die. They were renamed and repackaged, and > became the workhorse of the process control industry. > > Still in use today, particularly on sites with an "If it isn't broken, > don't fix it" philosophy. Am trying to recall where I came across an article on computing defining types of problems where an arbitrarily large problem can be solved faster by an analog computer than by any digital one. Too long ago, but one of the problems proposed was that of sorting an arbitrarily large bundle of spaghetti strands of varying lengths. The analog answer was to grasp them with an arbitrarily large hand and smack them against a flat surface, a one-step analog sort. ###### From: "Rupert Pigott" Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 13:05:03 +0100 Organization: Titanic Enterprises Unlimited Lines: 30 Message-ID: <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <989.355T2724T8835096@lr.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: darkboong.demon.co.uk X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1061035503 24874 80.177.7.220 (16 Aug 2003 12:05:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 12:05:03 +0000 (UTC) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Priority: 3 X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Cache-Post-Path: saucer.planet.gong!unknown@voodoo.planet.gong Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!colt.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148638 "Lon Stowell" wrote in message news:DBg%a.125217$It4.51790@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net... > Approximately 8/15/03 15:10, David Powell uttered for posterity: [SNIP] > Am trying to recall where I came across an article on computing > defining types of problems where an arbitrarily large problem > can be solved faster by an analog computer than by any digital > one. Too long ago, but one of the problems proposed was that > of sorting an arbitrarily large bundle of spaghetti strands > of varying lengths. The analog answer was to grasp them with > an arbitrarily large hand and smack them against a flat surface, > a one-step analog sort. Hmmm... But does that really work ? Don't you need repeated slaps (heh, most people do) ? Isn't the "arbitarily large" bundle in fact limited by the capacity of the "arbitarily large" hand and the flat surface ? If I had an arbitarily large number of logic gates I'd bet that I could come up with a one step solution too. ;) Cheers, Rupert ###### From: jim symolon Reply-To: jsymolon01@SPAMattbiBAIT.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <989.355T2724T8835096@lr.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 74 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.243.121.206 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net 1061038134 12.243.121.206 (Sat, 16 Aug 2003 12:48:54 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 12:48:54 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 12:48:54 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148651 Lon Stowell wrote: > Approximately 8/15/03 15:10, David Powell uttered for posterity: > > >>In article , >> Brian Inglis in >>alt.folklore.computers wrote: >> >> >>>On 13 Aug 03 14:43:54 -0500 in alt.folklore.computers, "Ash >>>Wyllie" wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Gently extracted from the mind of Niall McAuley; >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Shadrach's Lump" wrote in message >>>>>news:47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com... >>>>> >>>>>>"There I learned about analog computation with mechanical components, >>>>>>wich actually had a brief ascendancy on Earth, using many of the same >>>>>>techniques we see in URiel's ball of spinning glass." >>>> >>>>>It doesn't say glass computers had a brief ascendancy, it says >>>>>analog computers did, which is true. The machines at Bletchley >>>>>Park during WWII which were used to help break the German Enigma >>>>>codes are an example. >>>> >>>>I thought that the crypto computers, along with some ballistic computers built >>>>in the early 40s were the first digital computers. >>>> >>>>Analog computers were popular for scientific calculations for a long time. >>>>Prolly into the 60s. And there was an analog econometric computer built some >>>>time ago. It used water IIRC. >>> >>>Analog computers were used in hybrid couplings with digital >>>computers for signal processing until the 1980s at a PPOE. >>>Good for Q&D modelling of control systems. >>> >> >> >>Analogue computers didn't die. They were renamed and repackaged, and >>became the workhorse of the process control industry. >> >>Still in use today, particularly on sites with an "If it isn't broken, >>don't fix it" philosophy. > > > Am trying to recall where I came across an article on computing > defining types of problems where an arbitrarily large problem > can be solved faster by an analog computer than by any digital > one. Too long ago, but one of the problems proposed was that > of sorting an arbitrarily large bundle of spaghetti strands > of varying lengths. The analog answer was to grasp them with > an arbitrarily large hand and smack them against a flat surface, > a one-step analog sort. > > < some newsgroups trimmed > Scientific American ? Maybe mid-80's ? I remember b&w drawings of the "box" of spagetti. Another was finding a line on a grid that was the minimum ? sum of arbitrary points. i.e. put nails where your points are and then rubber band a stick with one band to a point, thus giving you the line. -- Jim Remove SPAM BAIT from address to reply ###### From: "Charlie Gibbs" Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: 16 Aug 03 17:56:55 -0800 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 39 Message-ID: <1522.358T2753T10766534@kltpzyxm.invalid> References: <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-189.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews1 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148706 In article ljelmore@comcast.net (Larry Elmore) writes: > Rupert Pigott wrote: > >> "Lon Stowell" wrote in message >> news:DBg%a.125217$It4.51790@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net... >> >>> Am trying to recall where I came across an article on computing >>> defining types of problems where an arbitrarily large problem >>> can be solved faster by an analog computer than by any digital >>> one. Too long ago, but one of the problems proposed was that >>> of sorting an arbitrarily large bundle of spaghetti strands >>> of varying lengths. The analog answer was to grasp them with >>> an arbitrarily large hand and smack them against a flat surface, >>> a one-step analog sort. >> >> Hmmm... >> But does that really work ? >> Don't you need repeated slaps (heh, most people do) ? No, just one slap if you do it right, followed by n picks (where n is the number of strands). That makes it an O(n) sort, which is way ahead of the competition. >> Isn't the "arbitarily large" bundle in fact limited by >> the capacity of the "arbitarily large" hand and the >> flat surface ? > > Not to mention whether or not the sphagetti had been cooked. Aha, it's time to mention the "noodle picker" again. :-) -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign! ###### From: Tom Morley Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 16:53:30 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 95 Message-ID: References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <989.355T2724T8835096@lr.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.52.09 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 16 Aug 2003 20:51:43 GMT User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030314 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!news.astraweb.com!news-small.astraweb.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!harp.news.atl.earthlink.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148723 jim symolon wrote: > Lon Stowell wrote: > >> Approximately 8/15/03 15:10, David Powell uttered for posterity: >> >> >>> In article , Brian >>> Inglis in >>> alt.folklore.computers wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On 13 Aug 03 14:43:54 -0500 in alt.folklore.computers, "Ash >>>> Wyllie" wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Gently extracted from the mind of Niall McAuley; >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> "Shadrach's Lump" wrote in message >>>>>> news:47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com... >>>>>> >>>>>>> "There I learned about analog computation with mechanical >>>>>>> components, >>>>>>> wich actually had a brief ascendancy on Earth, using many of the >>>>>>> same >>>>>>> techniques we see in URiel's ball of spinning glass." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> It doesn't say glass computers had a brief ascendancy, it says >>>>>> analog computers did, which is true. The machines at Bletchley >>>>>> Park during WWII which were used to help break the German Enigma >>>>>> codes are an example. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I thought that the crypto computers, along with some ballistic >>>>> computers built >>>>> in the early 40s were the first digital computers. >>>>> >>>>> Analog computers were popular for scientific calculations for a >>>>> long time. >>>>> Prolly into the 60s. And there was an analog econometric computer >>>>> built some >>>>> time ago. It used water IIRC. >>>> >>>> >>>> Analog computers were used in hybrid couplings with digital >>>> computers for signal processing until the 1980s at a PPOE. Good for >>>> Q&D modelling of control systems. >>> >>> >>> >>> Analogue computers didn't die. They were renamed and repackaged, and >>> became the workhorse of the process control industry. >>> >>> Still in use today, particularly on sites with an "If it isn't broken, >>> don't fix it" philosophy. >> >> >> >> Am trying to recall where I came across an article on computing >> defining types of problems where an arbitrarily large problem >> can be solved faster by an analog computer than by any digital >> one. Too long ago, but one of the problems proposed was that >> of sorting an arbitrarily large bundle of spaghetti strands >> of varying lengths. The analog answer was to grasp them with >> an arbitrarily large hand and smack them against a flat surface, >> a one-step analog sort. >> >> > < some newsgroups trimmed > > > Scientific American ? Maybe mid-80's ? I remember b&w drawings of the > "box" of spagetti. > > Another was finding a line on a grid that was the minimum ? sum of > arbitrary points. i.e. put nails where your points are and then rubber > band a stick with one band to a point, thus giving you the line. > Another is a planar shortest path problem. Make a copy of the network with string for the edges. Pick up the start and the destination. Pull. This was pointed out by George Minty. -- Tom Morley | Same roads morley@math.gatech.edu | Same rights tmorley@mindspring.com | Same rules AIM: DocTDM ###### From: Larry Elmore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030714 Debian/1.4-2 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <989.355T2724T8835096@lr.net> <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> In-Reply-To: <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 29 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.237.120.43 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net 1061070166 12.237.120.43 (Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:42:46 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:42:46 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:42:46 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!newsfeed.stueberl.de!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!wn14feed!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148738 Rupert Pigott wrote: > "Lon Stowell" wrote in message > news:DBg%a.125217$It4.51790@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net... > >>Approximately 8/15/03 15:10, David Powell uttered for posterity: > > > [SNIP] > > >> Am trying to recall where I came across an article on computing >> defining types of problems where an arbitrarily large problem >> can be solved faster by an analog computer than by any digital >> one. Too long ago, but one of the problems proposed was that >> of sorting an arbitrarily large bundle of spaghetti strands >> of varying lengths. The analog answer was to grasp them with >> an arbitrarily large hand and smack them against a flat surface, >> a one-step analog sort. > > > Hmmm... > But does that really work ? > Don't you need repeated slaps (heh, most people do) ? > Isn't the "arbitarily large" bundle in fact limited by > the capacity of the "arbitarily large" hand and the > flat surface ? Not to mention whether or not the sphagetti had been cooked. ###### From: nospam@oddhack.engr.sgi.com (Jon Leech) Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: 16 Aug 2003 21:56:43 GMT Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc. Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> NNTP-Posting-Host: oddhack.engr.sgi.com X-Trace: fido.engr.sgi.com 1061071003 1979766 130.62.54.158 (16 Aug 2003 21:56:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@fido.engr.sgi.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Aug 2003 21:56:43 GMT X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) Originator: nospam@oddhack.engr.sgi.com (Jon Leech) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!enews.sgi.com!fido.engr.sgi.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148702 In article <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong>, Rupert Pigott wrote: >"Lon Stowell" wrote in message >news:DBg%a.125217$It4.51790@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net... >> Approximately 8/15/03 15:10, David Powell uttered for posterity: >> Am trying to recall where I came across an article on computing >> defining types of problems where an arbitrarily large problem >> can be solved faster by an analog computer than by any digital >> one. Too long ago, but one of the problems proposed was that >> of sorting an arbitrarily large bundle of spaghetti strands >> of varying lengths. The analog answer was to grasp them with >> an arbitrarily large hand and smack them against a flat surface, >> a one-step analog sort. > >Hmmm... >But does that really work ? No. The strands aren't sorted by doing this. Jon __@/ ###### From: Andrew Plotkin Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:36:10 +0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Lines: 30 Message-ID: References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com X-Trace: reader1.panix.com 1061073370 19588 166.84.1.2 (16 Aug 2003 22:36:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:36:10 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: tin/1.6.0-20030714 ("Vatersay") (UNIX) (NetBSD/1.5.4_ALPHA (i386)) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshosting.com!news-xfer1.atl.newshosting.com!yellow.newsread.com!netaxs.com!newsread.com!panix!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148688 In rec.arts.sf.written, Jon Leech wrote: > In article <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong>, > Rupert Pigott wrote: > >"Lon Stowell" wrote in message > >news:DBg%a.125217$It4.51790@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net... > >> Approximately 8/15/03 15:10, David Powell uttered for posterity: > >> Am trying to recall where I came across an article on computing > >> defining types of problems where an arbitrarily large problem > >> can be solved faster by an analog computer than by any digital > >> one. Too long ago, but one of the problems proposed was that > >> of sorting an arbitrarily large bundle of spaghetti strands > >> of varying lengths. The analog answer was to grasp them with > >> an arbitrarily large hand and smack them against a flat surface, > >> a one-step analog sort. > > > >Hmmm... > >But does that really work ? > > No. The strands aren't sorted by doing this. You missed step 2: pull out the longest strand. Then the longest remaining strand. Then the longest remaining strand. Continue until you have your sorted list. This takes N+1 steps (one smack, N pulls) and is therefore an example of the fabled O(N) sort. --Z "And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..." * * Make your vote count. Get your vote counted. ###### From: Lawrence Wilkinson Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 23:37:26 +0100 Lines: 26 Message-ID: <3F3EB226.3010200@formula1.demon.co.uk> References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <989.355T2724T8835096@lr.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: formula1.demon.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1061118586 11004 158.152.54.200 (17 Aug 2003 11:09:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:09:46 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020623 Debian/1.0.0-0.woody.1 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!127.0.0.1!nobody Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148697 Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote: > In article <989.355T2724T8835096@lr.net>, Ash Wyllie wrote: > > >>Analog computers were popular for scientific calculations for a long time. >>Prolly into the 60s. And there was an analog econometric computer built some >>time ago. It used water IIRC. > > > Oh, dear. The "hydraulic Keynesians." They made the analogy of the > economy to water flowing through a path. Government "pump-priming" > could raise the level (this thinking neglected the fact that the gov't > had to take the water from someone, and merely put it back . . .). > > Lots of these were made for classroom use as a demonstration, but I"ve > never heard of one being made for actual computation. > > hawk, economist Have a look at the Moniac... http://www.creativenz.govt.nz/venice/nz/moniac.html for an example -- Lawrence Wilkinson ljw@formula1.demon.co.uk Ph +44(0)1869-811059 http://www.formula1.demon.co.uk ###### Message-ID: <3F3EE88F.E972F610@ev1.net> From: Charles Richmond Reply-To: richmond@ev1.net Organization: Canine Computer Center X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 33 NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.241.15.59 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: sccrnsc04 1061080394 12.241.15.59 (Sun, 17 Aug 2003 00:33:14 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 00:33:14 GMT Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 00:33:14 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news2.ip-plus.net,newsfeed2-zh.ip-plus.net!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!news-out.nuthinbutnews.com!propagator2-sterling!news-in-sterling.nuthinbutnews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!wn14feed!wn13feed!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!sccrnsc04.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148744 Andrew Plotkin wrote: > > In rec.arts.sf.written, Jon Leech wrote: > > In article <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong>, > > Rupert Pigott wrote: > > >"Lon Stowell" wrote in message > > >news:DBg%a.125217$It4.51790@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net... > > >> Approximately 8/15/03 15:10, David Powell uttered for posterity: > > >> Am trying to recall where I came across an article on computing > > >> defining types of problems where an arbitrarily large problem > > >> can be solved faster by an analog computer than by any digital > > >> one. Too long ago, but one of the problems proposed was that > > >> of sorting an arbitrarily large bundle of spaghetti strands > > >> of varying lengths. The analog answer was to grasp them with > > >> an arbitrarily large hand and smack them against a flat surface, > > >> a one-step analog sort. > > > > > >Hmmm... > > >But does that really work ? > > > > No. The strands aren't sorted by doing this. > > You missed step 2: pull out the longest strand. Then the longest > remaining strand. Then the longest remaining strand. Continue until > you have your sorted list. This takes N+1 steps (one smack, N pulls) > and is therefore an example of the fabled O(N) sort. > But my "heapsort" routine can usually get O(log2 N) performance. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net | +----------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### Message-ID: <3F3EE968.DF303BE0@ev1.net> From: Charles Richmond Reply-To: richmond@ev1.net Organization: Canine Computer Center X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 39 NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.241.15.59 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: rwcrnsc54 1061080611 12.241.15.59 (Sun, 17 Aug 2003 00:36:51 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 00:36:51 GMT Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 00:36:51 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!cycny01.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!wn14feed!wn13feed!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc54.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148746 Andrew Plotkin wrote: > > In rec.arts.sf.written, Jon Leech wrote: > > In article <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong>, > > Rupert Pigott wrote: > > >"Lon Stowell" wrote in message > > >news:DBg%a.125217$It4.51790@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net... > > >> Approximately 8/15/03 15:10, David Powell uttered for posterity: > > >> Am trying to recall where I came across an article on computing > > >> defining types of problems where an arbitrarily large problem > > >> can be solved faster by an analog computer than by any digital > > >> one. Too long ago, but one of the problems proposed was that > > >> of sorting an arbitrarily large bundle of spaghetti strands > > >> of varying lengths. The analog answer was to grasp them with > > >> an arbitrarily large hand and smack them against a flat surface, > > >> a one-step analog sort. > > > > > >Hmmm... > > >But does that really work ? > > > > No. The strands aren't sorted by doing this. > > You missed step 2: pull out the longest strand. Then the longest > remaining strand. Then the longest remaining strand. Continue until > you have your sorted list. This takes N+1 steps (one smack, N pulls) > and is therefore an example of the fabled O(N) sort. > Has anyone here heard of a "planimeter"??? It will "calculate" the area of a closed surface via analog methods. You use a "pointer" to trace out the perimeter of the enclosed area. When you arrive back at your starting point, the planimeter should show the area of the enclosed polygon. How could this be replaced with a "digital" computing device??? -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net | +----------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 20:09:14 -0500 Message-ID: <3F3ED46F.1CB491C3@alcyone.com> Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 18:03:43 -0700 From: Erik Max Francis Organization: Alcyone Systems X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en, eo MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> <3F3EE88F.E972F610@ev1.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 11 NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.81.242.190 X-Trace: sv3-9BCqc4vDNA/3kdQvDfFQGG11NDjy+sURWitLSVsI+Ah6J5h8n3Pm+GR9wU3ZYt8TKTKcAkBB9ua84uJ!oRLRVay6cChFb+wdFuQHTyofo3cil+9Bo92YYXJzeGOTeWcpzq9oQKxf942Rc2n2g+T/5GufSbpz!/xjb X-Complaints-To: abuse@speakeasy.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@speakeasy.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!130.59.10.21.MISMATCH!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor-online.net!small1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!border3.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp.speakeasy.net!news.speakeasy.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148660 Charles Richmond wrote: > But my "heapsort" routine can usually get O(log2 N) performance. Heapsort only guarantees O(n ln n), which is worse than O(n). -- Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ __ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE / \ Sit loosely in the saddle of life. \__/ Robert Louis Stevenson ###### From: Michael Ash Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 20:11:02 -0500 Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Lines: 30 Message-ID: References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.203 User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.2 (PPC Mac OS X) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uwm.edu!mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148681 In article , Andrew Plotkin wrote: > In rec.arts.sf.written, Jon Leech wrote: > > In article <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong>, > > Rupert Pigott wrote: > > >"Lon Stowell" wrote in message > > >news:DBg%a.125217$It4.51790@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net... > > >> Approximately 8/15/03 15:10, David Powell uttered for posterity: > > >> Am trying to recall where I came across an article on computing > > >> defining types of problems where an arbitrarily large problem > > >> can be solved faster by an analog computer than by any digital > > >> one. Too long ago, but one of the problems proposed was that > > >> of sorting an arbitrarily large bundle of spaghetti strands > > >> of varying lengths. The analog answer was to grasp them with > > >> an arbitrarily large hand and smack them against a flat surface, > > >> a one-step analog sort. > > > > > >Hmmm... > > >But does that really work ? > > > > No. The strands aren't sorted by doing this. > > You missed step 2: pull out the longest strand. Then the longest > remaining strand. Then the longest remaining strand. Continue until > you have your sorted list. This takes N+1 steps (one smack, N pulls) > and is therefore an example of the fabled O(N) sort. Please explain how you can find and remove the longest strand in O(1) time. ###### From: b.scott@csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 01:27:18 GMT Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 11 Message-ID: <3f3ed9ca.92767113@enews.newsguy.com> References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> <3F3EE88F.E972F610@ev1.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-216.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews3 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148705 On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 00:33:14 GMT, Charles Richmond wrote: [...] >But my "heapsort" routine can usually get O(log2 N) performance. Heapsort guarantees only O(n lg n). (The base of the logs is irrelevant.) Brian ###### From: Michael Ash Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:37:54 -0500 Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Lines: 53 Message-ID: References: <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> <1522.358T2753T10766534@kltpzyxm.invalid> NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.203 User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.2 (PPC Mac OS X) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!cyclone.bc.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uwm.edu!mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148677 In article <1522.358T2753T10766534@kltpzyxm.invalid>, "Charlie Gibbs" wrote: > In article > ljelmore@comcast.net (Larry Elmore) writes: > > > Rupert Pigott wrote: > > > >> "Lon Stowell" wrote in message > >> news:DBg%a.125217$It4.51790@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net... > >> > >>> Am trying to recall where I came across an article on computing > >>> defining types of problems where an arbitrarily large problem > >>> can be solved faster by an analog computer than by any digital > >>> one. Too long ago, but one of the problems proposed was that > >>> of sorting an arbitrarily large bundle of spaghetti strands > >>> of varying lengths. The analog answer was to grasp them with > >>> an arbitrarily large hand and smack them against a flat surface, > >>> a one-step analog sort. > >> > >> Hmmm... > >> But does that really work ? > >> Don't you need repeated slaps (heh, most people do) ? > > No, just one slap if you do it right, followed by n picks (where > n is the number of strands). That makes it an O(n) sort, which > is way ahead of the competition. I'm still not convinced of the possibility of an O(1) strand picker, which the O(n) spaghetti sort requires. Assuming your strand picker moves at a finite speed (this seems reasonable, if relativity holds then it can't move at more than c), you take time to get to the next strand. Even if you can somehow magically choose the next strand instantly, you have to get there. The length of the average straight-line path will scale with something like n^.5. If your spaghetti is arranged in a circle, then the circle's radius is r=(A_s * n/pi)^0.5, where A_s is the area of a spaghetti strand. I am naively assuming that the average distance will be somewhat proportional. If this analysis is correct, then you perform an O(n^.5) operation n times, for a total of O(n^1.5), which is considerably worse than many known computer sorts. Being able to choose the longest strand in constant is also highly implausible. You cannot perform this operation in parallel unless you postulate not only an infinite plane but an infinite amount of equipment, in which case we can probably build a much less unwieldy electronic sorter that will do the work a lot faster. Thus, no matter how parallel your longest-strand finder is, asymptotically it will always be an O(n) operation. It is concievable that choosing and moving the picker could be done in parallel, so the final result should take a max of the two, not a total. So it seems to me that, in the end, spaghetti sort is O(n^2). ###### From: Andrew Plotkin Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.written Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 02:40:03 +0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Lines: 42 Message-ID: References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com X-Trace: reader1.panix.com 1061088003 23610 166.84.1.2 (17 Aug 2003 02:40:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 02:40:03 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: tin/1.6.0-20030714 ("Vatersay") (UNIX) (NetBSD/1.5.4_ALPHA (i386)) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148689 In rec.arts.sf.written, Michael Ash wrote: > In article , > Andrew Plotkin wrote: > > > In rec.arts.sf.written, Jon Leech wrote: > > > In article <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong>, > > > Rupert Pigott wrote: > > > >"Lon Stowell" wrote in message > > > >news:DBg%a.125217$It4.51790@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net... > > > >> Approximately 8/15/03 15:10, David Powell uttered for posterity: > > > >> Am trying to recall where I came across an article on computing > > > >> defining types of problems where an arbitrarily large problem > > > >> can be solved faster by an analog computer than by any digital > > > >> one. Too long ago, but one of the problems proposed was that > > > >> of sorting an arbitrarily large bundle of spaghetti strands > > > >> of varying lengths. The analog answer was to grasp them with > > > >> an arbitrarily large hand and smack them against a flat surface, > > > >> a one-step analog sort. > > > > > > > >Hmmm... > > > >But does that really work ? > > > > > > No. The strands aren't sorted by doing this. > > > > You missed step 2: pull out the longest strand. Then the longest > > remaining strand. Then the longest remaining strand. Continue until > > you have your sorted list. This takes N+1 steps (one smack, N pulls) > > and is therefore an example of the fabled O(N) sort. > > Please explain how you can find and remove the longest strand in O(1) > time. They're all standing end-up against a flat table. You lower your hand above the bundle until one of them pokes you. That's the longest one. (Followups reduced, by teh way, this is too widely crossposted.) --Z "And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..." * * Make your vote count. Get your vote counted. ###### From: Brooks Moses Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 20:06:09 -0700 Organization: Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University Lines: 31 Message-ID: <3F3EF121.A0E4BF54@cits1.stanford.edu> References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> <3F3EE968.DF303BE0@ev1.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: dnab42a4b3.stanford.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.Stanford.EDU 1061089648 28511 171.66.164.179 (17 Aug 2003 03:07:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@news.stanford.edu X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!shelby.stanford.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148696 Charles Richmond wrote: > Andrew Plotkin wrote: > > You missed step 2: pull out the longest strand. Then the longest > > remaining strand. Then the longest remaining strand. Continue until > > you have your sorted list. This takes N+1 steps (one smack, N pulls) > > and is therefore an example of the fabled O(N) sort. > > Has anyone here heard of a "planimeter"??? It will "calculate" the > area of a closed surface via analog methods. You use a "pointer" to > trace out the perimeter of the enclosed area. When you arrive back > at your starting point, the planimeter should show the area of the > enclosed polygon. > > How could this be replaced with a "digital" computing device??? Very simply. The digital computing device has some form of measuring the X and Y coordinates of the stylus -- either directly by digital position sensors, or by some form of analog sensor and an analog-to-digital convertor -- and then performs (using digital arithmetic) the same calculations that are done in the analog original. Namely, it starts a running total off at zero (when you push an "initialize" button, presumably) and at some repeated intervals it adds a value -- specifically, the product of the Y coordinate and the distance that you've moved the X coordinate since the previous addition -- to the total and displays it on a digital readout. Actually, if the digital implementation used a sufficiently flexible core processor, one could fairly easily add a correction for cases when the user hasn't quite got the pointer back to the starting point. - Brooks ###### From: Brooks Moses Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 20:13:52 -0700 Organization: Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University Lines: 38 Message-ID: <3F3EF2F0.7207B4E5@cits1.stanford.edu> References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> NNTP-Posting-Host: dnab42a4b3.stanford.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.Stanford.EDU 1061090111 28856 171.66.164.179 (17 Aug 2003 03:15:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@news.stanford.edu X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!shelby.stanford.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148695 Michael Ash wrote: > Andrew Plotkin wrote: [...] > > > >> Approximately 8/15/03 15:10, David Powell uttered for posterity: > > > >> Am trying to recall where I came across an article on computing > > > >> defining types of problems where an arbitrarily large problem > > > >> can be solved faster by an analog computer than by any digital > > > >> one. Too long ago, but one of the problems proposed was that > > > >> of sorting an arbitrarily large bundle of spaghetti strands > > > >> of varying lengths. The analog answer was to grasp them with > > > >> an arbitrarily large hand and smack them against a flat surface, > > > >> a one-step analog sort. [...] > > You missed step 2: pull out the longest strand. Then the longest > > remaining strand. Then the longest remaining strand. Continue until > > you have your sorted list. This takes N+1 steps (one smack, N pulls) > > and is therefore an example of the fabled O(N) sort. > > Please explain how you can find and remove the longest strand in O(1) > time. The following implementation will work to demonstrate that it is possible: Take a flat plate, with X and Y axes drawn on it. Lower it, parallel to the surface that you've smacked the ends of the strands against, towards the spaghetti. When it hits something, rotate it slightly on that point in the X direction, and locate the axis of rotation. Return it to parallel, and repeat in the Y direction. Select the strand at the intersection of these two axes, and remove it. An alternate implementation would be to simply coat the plate with a sticky substance, lower it until it touches the spaghetti, and then raise it. It will stick to the tallest strand -- or to multiple strands that are tied for "tallest" to within the measurement accuracy -- and pull only those up, but no others. - Brooks ###### From: Brooks Moses Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 20:26:05 -0700 Organization: Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University Lines: 73 Message-ID: <3F3EF5CD.E23CCB3A@cits1.stanford.edu> References: <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> <1522.358T2753T10766534@kltpzyxm.invalid> NNTP-Posting-Host: dnab42a4b3.stanford.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.Stanford.EDU 1061090846 29508 171.66.164.179 (17 Aug 2003 03:27:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@news.stanford.edu X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!shelby.stanford.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148701 Michael Ash wrote: > > In article <1522.358T2753T10766534@kltpzyxm.invalid>, > "Charlie Gibbs" wrote: > > > In article > > ljelmore@comcast.net (Larry Elmore) writes: > > > > > Rupert Pigott wrote: > > > > > >> "Lon Stowell" wrote in message > > >> news:DBg%a.125217$It4.51790@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net... > > >> > > >>> Am trying to recall where I came across an article on computing > > >>> defining types of problems where an arbitrarily large problem > > >>> can be solved faster by an analog computer than by any digital > > >>> one. Too long ago, but one of the problems proposed was that > > >>> of sorting an arbitrarily large bundle of spaghetti strands > > >>> of varying lengths. The analog answer was to grasp them with > > >>> an arbitrarily large hand and smack them against a flat surface, > > >>> a one-step analog sort. > > >> > > >> Hmmm... > > >> But does that really work ? > > >> Don't you need repeated slaps (heh, most people do) ? > > > > No, just one slap if you do it right, followed by n picks (where > > n is the number of strands). That makes it an O(n) sort, which > > is way ahead of the competition. > > I'm still not convinced of the possibility of an O(1) strand picker, > which the O(n) spaghetti sort requires. > > Assuming your strand picker moves at a finite speed (this seems > reasonable, if relativity holds then it can't move at more than c), you > take time to get to the next strand. Even if you can somehow magically > choose the next strand instantly, you have to get there. The length of > the average straight-line path will scale with something like n^.5. If > your spaghetti is arranged in a circle, then the circle's radius is > r=(A_s * n/pi)^0.5, where A_s is the area of a spaghetti strand. I am > naively assuming that the average distance will be somewhat > proportional. If this analysis is correct, then you perform an O(n^.5) > operation n times, for a total of O(n^1.5), which is considerably worse > than many known computer sorts. This is not, however, a fair comparison, as the computer sorts are also presumed to have O(1) time for addressing memory and so forth. That breaks down in a similar fashion when you get to very large data sets. > Being able to choose the longest strand in constant is also highly > implausible. You cannot perform this operation in parallel unless you > postulate not only an infinite plane but an infinite amount of > equipment, in which case we can probably build a much less unwieldy > electronic sorter that will do the work a lot faster. Thus, no matter > how parallel your longest-strand finder is, asymptotically it will > always be an O(n) operation. It is concievable that choosing and moving > the picker could be done in parallel, so the final result should take a > max of the two, not a total. So it seems to me that, in the end, > spaghetti sort is O(n^2). I think that this isn't actually as implausible as you describe it. If you postulate infinitely fine resolution on measuring devices, and corresponding accuracy of machining -- which, IMHO, you've already done in assuming the flat plate that you started with -- you can find the longest strand by the process of bringing down a parallel plate and rotating it about the first point it touches, as I mentioned in another post. In the case of equal-length strands, the process is only a bit more complex, but still (I think) of constant order. And, of course, the sticky-plate idea also works, if that's within the allowable tech. - Brooks ###### From: Warrick M. Locke Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:46:02 -0500 Organization: E. Coyote Enterprises, Inc. Message-ID: References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> <3F3EE968.DF303BE0@ev1.net> <3F3EF121.A0E4BF54@cits1.stanford.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.60 X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 48 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!cyclone.bc.net!tdsnet-transit!newspeer.tds.net!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-01!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148712 In article <3F3EF121.A0E4BF54@cits1.stanford.edu>, bmoses- usenet@cits1.stanford.edu says... > Charles Richmond wrote: > > Andrew Plotkin wrote: > > > You missed step 2: pull out the longest strand. Then the longest > > > remaining strand. Then the longest remaining strand. Continue until > > > you have your sorted list. This takes N+1 steps (one smack, N pulls) > > > and is therefore an example of the fabled O(N) sort. > > > > Has anyone here heard of a "planimeter"??? It will "calculate" the > > area of a closed surface via analog methods. You use a "pointer" to > > trace out the perimeter of the enclosed area. When you arrive back > > at your starting point, the planimeter should show the area of the > > enclosed polygon. > > > > How could this be replaced with a "digital" computing device??? > > Very simply. The digital computing device has some form of measuring > the X and Y coordinates of the stylus -- either directly by digital > position sensors, or by some form of analog sensor and an > analog-to-digital convertor -- and then performs (using digital > arithmetic) the same calculations that are done in the analog original. > Namely, it starts a running total off at zero (when you push an > "initialize" button, presumably) and at some repeated intervals it adds > a value -- specifically, the product of the Y coordinate and the > distance that you've moved the X coordinate since the previous addition > -- to the total and displays it on a digital readout. > > Actually, if the digital implementation used a sufficiently flexible > core processor, one could fairly easily add a correction for cases when > the user hasn't quite got the pointer back to the starting point. > > - Brooks > Well, errr, sort of, Brooks. In the business my clients are in (and I used to be in before I took up screwdrivers in anger) planimeters used to be a fairly standard item of kit. There were a number of attempts to emulate them digitally as you describe, with greater or lesser success, mostly lesser. A planimeter works by measuring arc lengths, not XY coordinates. It's easy enough to digitize one -- and it only needs one axis counter! Trying to do it *the same way* in the digital domain runs straight into truncation errors before any useful result can emerge. Area measuring in, e.g., computer graphics uses a different algorithm. Regards, Ric ###### Message-ID: <3F3F115E.7EA09314@yahoo.com> From: CBFalconer Reply-To: cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net Organization: Ched Research X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 34 Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 05:44:25 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.90.167.83 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1061099065 12.90.167.83 (Sun, 17 Aug 2003 05:44:25 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 05:44:25 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-out1.nntp.be!propagator2-sterling!news-in-sterling.nuthinbutnews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!wn14feed!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148757 Andrew Plotkin wrote: > In rec.arts.sf.written, Jon Leech wrote: > > Rupert Pigott wrote: > > >"Lon Stowell" wrote in message > > >> Approximately 8/15/03 15:10, David Powell uttered for posterity: > > > > > >> Am trying to recall where I came across an article on computing > > >> defining types of problems where an arbitrarily large problem > > >> can be solved faster by an analog computer than by any digital > > >> one. Too long ago, but one of the problems proposed was that > > >> of sorting an arbitrarily large bundle of spaghetti strands > > >> of varying lengths. The analog answer was to grasp them with > > >> an arbitrarily large hand and smack them against a flat surface, > > >> a one-step analog sort. > > > > > >Hmmm... But does that really work ? > > > > No. The strands aren't sorted by doing this. > > You missed step 2: pull out the longest strand. Then the longest > remaining strand. Then the longest remaining strand. Continue until > you have your sorted list. This takes N+1 steps (one smack, N pulls) > and is therefore an example of the fabled O(N) sort. That isn't a sort, it is a priority queue. Which is easily implemented as an O(N) process in virtually any language. Look up heaps and heapsort. -- Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. USE worldnet address! ###### From: Tom Morley Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 02:40:43 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 63 Message-ID: References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> <3F3EE968.DF303BE0@ev1.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.8c.5a Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 17 Aug 2003 06:38:46 GMT User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030314 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <3F3EE968.DF303BE0@ev1.net> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.news2me.com!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!harp.news.atl.earthlink.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148724 Charles Richmond wrote: > Andrew Plotkin wrote: > >>In rec.arts.sf.written, Jon Leech wrote: >> >>>In article <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong>, >>>Rupert Pigott wrote: >>> >>>>"Lon Stowell" wrote in message >>>>news:DBg%a.125217$It4.51790@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net... >>>> >>>>>Approximately 8/15/03 15:10, David Powell uttered for posterity: >>>>> Am trying to recall where I came across an article on computing >>>>> defining types of problems where an arbitrarily large problem >>>>> can be solved faster by an analog computer than by any digital >>>>> one. Too long ago, but one of the problems proposed was that >>>>> of sorting an arbitrarily large bundle of spaghetti strands >>>>> of varying lengths. The analog answer was to grasp them with >>>>> an arbitrarily large hand and smack them against a flat surface, >>>>> a one-step analog sort. >>>> >>>>Hmmm... >>>>But does that really work ? >>> >>> No. The strands aren't sorted by doing this. >> >>You missed step 2: pull out the longest strand. Then the longest >>remaining strand. Then the longest remaining strand. Continue until >>you have your sorted list. This takes N+1 steps (one smack, N pulls) >>and is therefore an example of the fabled O(N) sort. >> > > Has anyone here heard of a "planimeter"??? It will "calculate" the > area of a closed surface via analog methods. You use a "pointer" to > trace out the perimeter of the enclosed area. When you arrive back > at your starting point, the planimeter should show the area of the > enclosed polygon. > > How could this be replaced with a "digital" computing device??? > A digital planimiter can easily be constructed using a digitization of the formula area = (1/2) Integral of xdy - ydx. In fact, I had a calculus class do this a few terms back. Positions are read off of a graphics tablet -- the stylus of which is tracing the boundary of the area to be computed. Given an accurate map, this is a reasonable way of getting areas. BTW the mathematics of the real planimeter can be found in some old engineering math books. -- Tom Morley | Same roads morley@math.gatech.edu | Same rights tmorley@mindspring.com | Same rules AIM: DocTDM ###### From: Michael Ash Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 02:09:45 -0500 Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Lines: 51 Message-ID: References: <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> <1522.358T2753T10766534@kltpzyxm.invalid> <3F3EF5CD.E23CCB3A@cits1.stanford.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.203 User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.2 (PPC Mac OS X) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uwm.edu!mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148685 In article <3F3EF5CD.E23CCB3A@cits1.stanford.edu>, Brooks Moses wrote: > This is not, however, a fair comparison, as the computer sorts are also > presumed to have O(1) time for addressing memory and so forth. That > breaks down in a similar fashion when you get to very large data sets. Very good. I didn't consider this. I still believe the computer sort will come out asymptotically superior. A computer can store a number in a space proportional to the logarithm of the number, whereas a piece of spaghetti takes space directly proportional to the number's size. Basically, the computer can exist in three dimensions while the spaghetti is effectively a two-dimensional device. I don't see any way of getting better than O(n^1.5) spaghetti sort, because in the end you are limited by the physical size of your spaghetti collection. So the question comes down to figuring out what the actual computer sort behavior is given physical constraints such as memory that gets slower as it gets larger. The size of an individual memory cell will be proportional to log(n) (I think), and the radius of the memory collection will be proportional to n^1/3. Multiplying this by the canonical sort time gives O(n^4/3 log2n), which is still better than spaghetti. It's quite late and I'm probably missing something from this analysis. One may have to consider heat dissipation, perhaps memory can't be stored in a 3D array to arbitrary sizes. > I think that this isn't actually as implausible as you describe it. If > you postulate infinitely fine resolution on measuring devices, and > corresponding accuracy of machining -- which, IMHO, you've already done > in assuming the flat plate that you started with -- you can find the > longest strand by the process of bringing down a parallel plate and > rotating it about the first point it touches, as I mentioned in another > post. In the case of equal-length strands, the process is only a bit > more complex, but still (I think) of constant order. > > And, of course, the sticky-plate idea also works, if that's within the > allowable tech. I think that, in the end, both of these techniques still suffer from one O(n^.5) operation per extraction. You have to get the spaghetti strand out of the bundle, and that means moving either it, a manipulator, or both, across space that is proportional to n^.5. But again, I could easily be missing something. I'm posting from rec.arts.sf.science, so we could have even more fun. Is there any arrangement of memory cells in 3D space that will not collapse into a black hole as its size grows without bound? How about spaghetti? ###### From: Michael Ash Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 02:11:00 -0500 Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Lines: 35 Message-ID: References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> <3F3F115E.7EA09314@yahoo.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.203 User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.2 (PPC Mac OS X) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!cyclone.bc.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uwm.edu!mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148678 In article <3F3F115E.7EA09314@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer wrote: > Andrew Plotkin wrote: > > In rec.arts.sf.written, Jon Leech wrote: > > > Rupert Pigott wrote: > > > >"Lon Stowell" wrote in message > > > >> Approximately 8/15/03 15:10, David Powell uttered for posterity: > > > > > > > >> Am trying to recall where I came across an article on computing > > > >> defining types of problems where an arbitrarily large problem > > > >> can be solved faster by an analog computer than by any digital > > > >> one. Too long ago, but one of the problems proposed was that > > > >> of sorting an arbitrarily large bundle of spaghetti strands > > > >> of varying lengths. The analog answer was to grasp them with > > > >> an arbitrarily large hand and smack them against a flat surface, > > > >> a one-step analog sort. > > > > > > > >Hmmm... But does that really work ? > > > > > > No. The strands aren't sorted by doing this. > > > > You missed step 2: pull out the longest strand. Then the longest > > remaining strand. Then the longest remaining strand. Continue until > > you have your sorted list. This takes N+1 steps (one smack, N pulls) > > and is therefore an example of the fabled O(N) sort. > > That isn't a sort, it is a priority queue. Which is easily > implemented as an O(N) process in virtually any language. Look up > heaps and heapsort. Priority queue removal is O(logn) per operation. To perform a sort with one, you need to do n removals, for a total of O(nlogn). It is mathematically provable that any pair-comparison sort can not perform better than O(nlogn). ###### Message-ID: <3F40606F.DF3167A8@ev1.net> From: Charles Richmond Reply-To: richmond@ev1.net Organization: Canine Computer Center X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <989.355T2724T8835096@lr.net> <3F3EB226.3010200@formula1.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 33 NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.241.15.59 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: sccrnsc03 1061176619 12.241.15.59 (Mon, 18 Aug 2003 03:16:59 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 03:16:59 GMT Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 03:16:59 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!cycny01.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!wn14feed!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!sccrnsc03.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148808 Lawrence Wilkinson wrote: > > Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote: > > In article <989.355T2724T8835096@lr.net>, Ash Wyllie wrote: > > > > > >>Analog computers were popular for scientific calculations for a long time. > >>Prolly into the 60s. And there was an analog econometric computer built some > >>time ago. It used water IIRC. > > > > > > Oh, dear. The "hydraulic Keynesians." They made the analogy of the > > economy to water flowing through a path. Government "pump-priming" > > could raise the level (this thinking neglected the fact that the gov't > > had to take the water from someone, and merely put it back . . .). > > > > Lots of these were made for classroom use as a demonstration, but I"ve > > never heard of one being made for actual computation. > > > > hawk, economist > > Have a look at the Moniac... > http://www.creativenz.govt.nz/venice/nz/moniac.html > for an example > The BBC radio program "Electric Brains" had a segment on a "water computer" that simulated the British economy. Most of the segment was about the life of the inventor. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net | +----------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### From: "Clark McIvor" Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.computers References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> <3F3EE968.DF303BE0@ev1.net> Message-ID: <01c36527$11d04e60$LocalHost@kenmcivo> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161 Lines: 55 Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 04:12:28 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.47.54.168 X-Trace: nnrp1.ozemail.com.au 1061179948 202.47.54.168 (Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:12:28 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:12:28 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!tiscali!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!newshosting.com!news-xfer1.atl.newshosting.com!uunet!dca.uu.net!snewsf0.syd.ops.aspac.uu.net!nnrp1.ozemail.com.au!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148794 Tom Morley wrote in article ... > > > Charles Richmond wrote: > > > > Has anyone here heard of a "planimeter"??? It will "calculate" the > > area of a closed surface via analog methods. You use a "pointer" to > > trace out the perimeter of the enclosed area. When you arrive back > > at your starting point, the planimeter should show the area of the > > enclosed polygon. > > > > How could this be replaced with a "digital" computing device??? > > > > A digital planimiter can easily be constructed using a digitization > of the formula > area = (1/2) Integral of xdy - ydx. > > In fact, I had a calculus class do this a few terms back. Positions > are read off of a graphics tablet -- the stylus of which is > tracing the boundary of the area to be computed. Given an accurate map, > this is a reasonable way of getting areas. > > > BTW the mathematics of the real planimeter can be found in some old > engineering math books. Is there an r - theta (radius, angle) version of this? Would it have the potential to be more accurate?. (I've not seen a planimeter, so don't know if finding the notional centre of each arc is feasible.) I'm wondering because I recall back in Uni days (EE) we got an exercise to write a program to get the plotter to produce Smith charts (basically, circles). Most students' approach was to move the pen by a constant amount in the x direction for each arc approximation and they found their delta-x had to be very small to produce good circles (thereby tying up the plotter for great periods). The better solution was via constant delta-theta. Jane > > -- > Tom Morley | Same roads > morley@math.gatech.edu | Same rights > tmorley@mindspring.com | Same rules > AIM: DocTDM > > ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:04:10 -0500 Message-ID: <3F405D09.24778686@alcyone.com> Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 21:58:49 -0700 From: Erik Max Francis Organization: Alcyone Systems X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en, eo MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> <3F3EE968.DF303BE0@ev1.net> <01c36527$11d04e60$LocalHost@kenmcivo> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 21 NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.81.242.190 X-Trace: sv3-T1nA9h/gCgoyU6ldAqmsoz+sySkwHspLgbK4GXIGbVldPWFAr9nN13s30oLMVlIUUP+ZFp01VYS+Qk3!6oXUpdYNPMO4UbQo5PwTTuHtqq1HO6Dl1v0sRE2fgvW2s33eGIX5M6skuUjZiI6adW6usD07WHv+!hhNL X-Complaints-To: abuse@speakeasy.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@speakeasy.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!newsfeed.freenet.de!news2.euro.net!216.166.71.118.MISMATCH!small1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp.speakeasy.net!news.speakeasy.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148787 Clark McIvor wrote: > Is there an r - theta (radius, angle) version of this? Would it have > the > potential to be more accurate?. (I've not seen a planimeter, so don't > know > if finding the notional centre of each arc is feasible.) Sure, just use the Jacobian for translating from rectangular coordinates to polar coordinates. You then get dA = dx dy = J(r, theta) dr dtheta = r dr dtheta, substitute in for the dA = dx dy representation in use with the digitization mentioned earlier, and then numerically integrate. -- Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ __ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE / \ Love is when you wake up in the morning and have a big smile. \__/ Anggun ###### From: Tom Morley Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 02:53:43 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 68 Message-ID: References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> <3F3EE968.DF303BE0@ev1.net> <01c36527$11d04e60$LocalHost@kenmcivo> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.8c.fb Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 18 Aug 2003 06:51:40 GMT User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030314 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <01c36527$11d04e60$LocalHost@kenmcivo> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!harp.news.atl.earthlink.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148801 Clark McIvor wrote: > Tom Morley wrote in article > ... > >> >>Charles Richmond wrote: >> >>>Has anyone here heard of a "planimeter"??? It will "calculate" the >>>area of a closed surface via analog methods. You use a "pointer" to >>>trace out the perimeter of the enclosed area. When you arrive back >>>at your starting point, the planimeter should show the area of the >>>enclosed polygon. >>> >>>How could this be replaced with a "digital" computing device??? >>> >> >>A digital planimiter can easily be constructed using a digitization >>of the formula >> area = (1/2) Integral of xdy - ydx. >> >>In fact, I had a calculus class do this a few terms back. Positions >>are read off of a graphics tablet -- the stylus of which is >>tracing the boundary of the area to be computed. Given an accurate map, >>this is a reasonable way of getting areas. >> >> >>BTW the mathematics of the real planimeter can be found in some old >>engineering math books. > > > Is there an r - theta (radius, angle) version of this? Would it have the > potential to be more accurate?. (I've not seen a planimeter, so don't know > if finding the notional centre of each arc is feasible.) > > I'm wondering because I recall back in Uni days (EE) we got an exercise to > write a program to get the plotter to produce Smith charts (basically, > circles). Most students' approach was to move the pen by a constant amount > in the x direction for each arc approximation and they found their delta-x > had > to be very small to produce good circles (thereby tying up the plotter for > great periods). The better solution was via constant delta-theta. > > Jane > Sure. You can convert to polar and get a formula. One issue, however is that the input (say from a graphics tablet) is in terms of x,y coordinates. The polar planimeter has two rods with one end of one fixed, and the opposite end of the other which is moved arround the curve. The joint between them moves arround in polar coordinates (r0, theta0), with r0 fixed by the length of the rod. The other rod moves arround in polar with the end of the first rod as its origon. So in terms of formulas, the stylus is at x = r0 cos(theta0) + r1 cos(theta1 + theta0) y = r0 sint(theta0) + r1 sin(theta1+ theta0) where r0 and r1 anre the length of the rods. -- Tom Morley | Same roads morley@math.gatech.edu | Same rights tmorley@mindspring.com | Same rules AIM: DocTDM ###### From: ekj@ekj.vestdata.no Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:02:11 +0200 Organization: 1&1 Internet AG Lines: 37 Sender: ekj@stundenspater.localdomain Message-ID: References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> <3F3F115E.7EA09314@yahoo.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p50872869.dip0.t-ipconnect.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Trace: online.de 1061200931 5206 80.135.40.105 (18 Aug 2003 10:02:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@einsundeins.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:02:11 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!inka.de!feed.news.schlund.de!schlund.de!news.online.de!p50872869.dip0.t-ipconnect.de!ekj Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148795 On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, Michael Ash wrote: > Priority queue removal is O(logn) per operation. To perform a sort > with one, you need to do n removals, for a total of O(nlogn). It is > mathematically provable that any pair-comparison sort can not perform > better than O(nlogn). Sure. And this is even so well known that I've lost track of the number of times I've seen people (typically CompSci students who SHOULD know better) overgeneralize this result and firmly believe that n*log(n) is the lower bound for any sorting-algorithm. This is *ONLY* true for comparison-based sortings, that is sortings where all the info you have about a pair of objects is which one is "bigger", and that a total ordering of the objects exist. For most real-world sorts you can do O(n) sorting. This is for example true for any sort where the field you're sorting on has a fixed size. This is for example true for the spaghetti-sort. If we assume that our spaghetti is max 40 cm long, and that accuracy beyond 0.1 mm is unachievable by a mechanical sorter, then there's only 4000 different possible lengths of spaghetti and a O(n) radix-sort would do the job nicely. Even if you assumed magical-tech and said that the length of the spaghetti could be determined to the nearest molecule, a radix-sort would still give you O(n). Unless you also say that the spaghetti migth be infinitely long, in which case the mechanical slap-operation would take infinitely long since it's constrained by c. I guess all this prooves is that if you're allowed to play with the definition of a problem, you can arrive at any answer you want. Sincerely, Eivind Kjørstad ###### From: mwilson@the-wire.com (Mel Wilson) Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Message-ID: References: <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> <1522.358T2753T10766534@kltpzyxm.invalid> Lines: 29 X-Newsreader: VSoup v1.2.9.37Beta [95/NT] Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 08:48:20 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.206.39.117 X-Trace: nnrp1.uunet.ca 1061215638 205.206.39.117 (Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:07:18 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:07:18 EDT Organization: WorldCom Canada Ltd. News Reader Service Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newspeer1-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!small1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!border3.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!207.35.177.252!nf3.bellglobal.com!news.uunet.ca!nnrp1.uunet.ca.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148820 In article , Michael Ash wrote: >In article <1522.358T2753T10766534@kltpzyxm.invalid>, > "Charlie Gibbs" wrote: > >> In article >> ljelmore@comcast.net (Larry Elmore) writes: >> >> > Rupert Pigott wrote: >> > >> >> "Lon Stowell" wrote in message >> >> news:DBg%a.125217$It4.51790@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net... >> >>> [...] Too long ago, but one of the problems proposed was that >> >>> of sorting an arbitrarily large bundle of spaghetti strands >> >>> of varying lengths. The analog answer was to grasp them with >> >>> an arbitrarily large hand and smack them against a flat surface, >> >>> a one-step analog sort. >> >> Don't you need repeated slaps (heh, most people do) ? >> No, just one slap if you do it right, followed by n picks (where >> n is the number of strands). That makes it an O(n) sort, which >> is way ahead of the competition. >I'm still not convinced of the possibility of an O(1) strand picker, >which the O(n) spaghetti sort requires. Board covered with double-sided tape, putty, mac-tac, what have you. Regards. Mel. ###### From: Michael Ash Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:30:50 -0500 Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> <1522.358T2753T10766534@kltpzyxm.invalid> NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.203 User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.2 (PPC Mac OS X) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!cyclone.bc.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uwm.edu!mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148816 In article , mwilson@the-wire.com (Mel Wilson) wrote: > In article , > Michael Ash wrote: > > >I'm still not convinced of the possibility of an O(1) strand picker, > >which the O(n) spaghetti sort requires. > > Board covered with double-sided tape, putty, mac-tac, > what have you. You have to find all of the strands, though, not just one. And I don't see a mechanism that would let you leave old strands in place and be able to record what you need to know about them in O(1) time. You need to remove the strand or at least measure it, which should take time proportional to the radius of the strand collection. ###### From: Michael Ash Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:39:11 -0500 Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Lines: 57 Message-ID: References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> <3F3F115E.7EA09314@yahoo.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.203 User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.2 (PPC Mac OS X) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uwm.edu!mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148819 In article , ekj@ekj.vestdata.no wrote: > On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, Michael Ash wrote: > > > Priority queue removal is O(logn) per operation. To perform a sort > > with one, you need to do n removals, for a total of O(nlogn). It is > > mathematically provable that any pair-comparison sort can not perform > > better than O(nlogn). > > Sure. And this is even so well known that I've lost track of the number > of times I've seen people (typically CompSci students who SHOULD know > better) overgeneralize this result and firmly believe that n*log(n) is > the lower bound for any sorting-algorithm. > > This is *ONLY* true for comparison-based sortings, that is sortings > where all the info you have about a pair of objects is which one is > "bigger", and that a total ordering of the objects exist. > > For most real-world sorts you can do O(n) sorting. This is for example > true for any sort where the field you're sorting on has a fixed size. If the field you're sorting has a fixed size, then there is a maximum number of objects. Thus the notation O(n) makes no sense. O(blah) is an asymptotic measure, it tells you how the runtime changes with the amount of data as the amount of data becomes infinite. So this is not an O(n) sort. A linear-time sort, perhaps. > This is for example true for the spaghetti-sort. If we assume that our > spaghetti is max 40 cm long, and that accuracy beyond 0.1 mm is > unachievable by a mechanical sorter, then there's only 4000 different > possible lengths of spaghetti and a O(n) radix-sort would do the job > nicely. > > Even if you assumed magical-tech and said that the length of the > spaghetti could be determined to the nearest molecule, a radix-sort > would still give you O(n). The point of this discussion is whether or not spaghetti sort can perform better than an electronic sort, though. If you can perform a radix sort on the spaghetti, you should be able to perform a radix sort on the same data in an electronic computer. > Unless you also say that the spaghetti migth > be infinitely long, in which case the mechanical slap-operation would > take infinitely long since it's constrained by c. This doesn't make a lot of sense. It would instead make sense to say that the spaghetti length has no bound, not that it can be infinitely long. In that case, your slap operation takes time proportional to the maximum length of the spaghetti, which probably works out to O(n). > I guess all this prooves is that if you're allowed to play with the > definition of a problem, you can arrive at any answer you want. How true. ###### From: derekl1963@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons) Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:51:37 GMT Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <3f410305.6430601@supernews.seanet.com> References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> <3F3EF2F0.7207B4E5@cits1.stanford.edu> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 35 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!newspeer1.nwr.nac.net!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!residential.shaw.ca!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148822 Brooks Moses wrote: >An alternate implementation would be to simply coat the plate with a >sticky substance, lower it until it touches the spaghetti, and then >raise it. It will stick to the tallest strand -- or to multiple strands >that are tied for "tallest" to within the measurement accuracy -- and >pull only those up, but no others. Mmm.... There's an edge case that could cause problems; Assuming; 1) That the the retention device is near the average center of lengths and 2) every strand is within the bound of the retention device then; There can exist strands approaching one half average length that approach being 'tallest' in relation to the stack. Or simply; as the mismatch in alignment increases, the chances of drawing a strand that is not currently the longest in the bundle increases. D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to om@io.com, as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. ###### Message-ID: <3F41552C.B84BAE16@ev1.net> From: Charles Richmond Reply-To: richmond@ev1.net Organization: Canine Computer Center X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> <3F3EE968.DF303BE0@ev1.net> <01c36527$11d04e60$LocalHost@kenmcivo> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 18 NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.241.15.59 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net 1061239273 12.241.15.59 (Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:41:13 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:41:13 GMT Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:41:13 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-out1.nntp.be!propagator2-sterling!news-in-sterling.nuthinbutnews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!wn14feed!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148849 Clark McIvor wrote: > > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] > > Is there an r - theta (radius, angle) version of this? Would it have the > potential to be more accurate?. (I've not seen a planimeter, so don't know > if finding the notional centre of each arc is feasible.) > Here is a web site that will explain a lot about planimeters: -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net | +----------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### From: Sam Yorko Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:40:40 -0800 Lines: 96 Message-ID: <3F418E28.3F92AA25@computer.org> References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <989.355T2724T8835096@lr.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: symsj01.sj.symbol.com (63.145.233.34) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1061257205 2663424 63.145.233.34 (16 [71567]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!symsj01.sj.symbol.COM!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148857 Tom Morley wrote: > > jim symolon wrote: > > Lon Stowell wrote: > > > >> Approximately 8/15/03 15:10, David Powell uttered for posterity: > >> > >> > >>> In article , Brian > >>> Inglis in > >>> alt.folklore.computers wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> On 13 Aug 03 14:43:54 -0500 in alt.folklore.computers, "Ash > >>>> Wyllie" wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Gently extracted from the mind of Niall McAuley; > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> "Shadrach's Lump" wrote in message > >>>>>> news:47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com... > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> "There I learned about analog computation with mechanical > >>>>>>> components, > >>>>>>> wich actually had a brief ascendancy on Earth, using many of the > >>>>>>> same > >>>>>>> techniques we see in URiel's ball of spinning glass." > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> It doesn't say glass computers had a brief ascendancy, it says > >>>>>> analog computers did, which is true. The machines at Bletchley > >>>>>> Park during WWII which were used to help break the German Enigma > >>>>>> codes are an example. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I thought that the crypto computers, along with some ballistic > >>>>> computers built > >>>>> in the early 40s were the first digital computers. > >>>>> > >>>>> Analog computers were popular for scientific calculations for a > >>>>> long time. > >>>>> Prolly into the 60s. And there was an analog econometric computer > >>>>> built some > >>>>> time ago. It used water IIRC. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Analog computers were used in hybrid couplings with digital > >>>> computers for signal processing until the 1980s at a PPOE. Good for > >>>> Q&D modelling of control systems. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Analogue computers didn't die. They were renamed and repackaged, and > >>> became the workhorse of the process control industry. > >>> > >>> Still in use today, particularly on sites with an "If it isn't broken, > >>> don't fix it" philosophy. > >> > >> > >> > >> Am trying to recall where I came across an article on computing > >> defining types of problems where an arbitrarily large problem > >> can be solved faster by an analog computer than by any digital > >> one. Too long ago, but one of the problems proposed was that > >> of sorting an arbitrarily large bundle of spaghetti strands > >> of varying lengths. The analog answer was to grasp them with > >> an arbitrarily large hand and smack them against a flat surface, > >> a one-step analog sort. > >> > >> > > < some newsgroups trimmed > > > > > Scientific American ? Maybe mid-80's ? I remember b&w drawings of the > > "box" of spagetti. > > > > Another was finding a line on a grid that was the minimum ? sum of > > arbitrary points. i.e. put nails where your points are and then rubber > > band a stick with one band to a point, thus giving you the line. > > > > Another is a planar shortest path problem. Make a copy of the network > with string for the edges. Pick up the start and the destination. > Pull. This was pointed out by George Minty. > You can also find the two points that are separated by the farthest distance using the same idea, and the same net. Pick up the net at on vertex, and let it all hang from that vertex. Then, grab the point that's hanging down the farthest. Let go of the first vertex, letting it all flop down, and the point that's now hanging down the farthest and the point you are grasping are the two points that are separated by the furthest distance. Pretty cool. Sam ###### Message-ID: <3F41E099.2BFB15EB@ev1.net> From: Charles Richmond Reply-To: richmond@ev1.net Organization: Canine Computer Center X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <989.355T2724T8835096@lr.net> <3F418E28.3F92AA25@computer.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 24 NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.241.15.59 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: sccrnsc04 1061274965 12.241.15.59 (Tue, 19 Aug 2003 06:36:05 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 06:36:05 GMT Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 06:36:06 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-out1.nntp.be!propagator2-sterling!news-in-sterling.nuthinbutnews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!wn14feed!wn13feed!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!sccrnsc04.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148880 Sam Yorko wrote: > > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] > > You can also find the two points that are separated by the farthest > distance using the same idea, and the same net. Pick up the net at on > vertex, and let it all hang from that vertex. Then, grab the point > that's hanging down the farthest. Let go of the first vertex, letting > it all flop down, and the point that's now hanging down the farthest and > the point you are grasping are the two points that are separated by the > furthest distance. Pretty cool. > You want to talk about "cool"...take a look at the Quadrature of the Lune: -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net | +----------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### From: ekj@ekj.vestdata.no Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 11:36:14 +0200 Organization: 1&1 Internet AG Lines: 26 Sender: ekj@stundenspater.localdomain Message-ID: References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> <3F3F115E.7EA09314@yahoo.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p508729ac.dip0.t-ipconnect.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Trace: online.de 1061285774 10672 80.135.41.172 (19 Aug 2003 09:36:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@einsundeins.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:36:14 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!130.59.10.21.MISMATCH!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!feed.news.schlund.de!schlund.de!news.online.de!p508729AC.dip0.t-ipconnect.de!ekj Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148870 On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Michael Ash wrote: > ekj@ekj.vestdata.no wrote: >> For most real-world sorts you can do O(n) sorting. This is for example >> true for any sort where the field you're sorting on has a fixed size. > > If the field you're sorting has a fixed size, then there is a maximum > number of objects. Thus the notation O(n) makes no sense. No there is no maximum number of objects. What is the maximum number of persons with names no longer than 10 characters ? There is no maximum, it's perfectly reasonable to assume there can be two persons with the same name, or two spaghettis with the same length. It's also still meaningful to talk of sorting of such groups. Maybe you where thrown off by me talking about a "total ordering" ? I've seen this term used in two different ways, I only meant that there can be no loops, not that there can be no duplicates. (I.e. if A > B, B > C and C > A, then no total ordering exists) Sincerely, Eivind Kjørstad ###### From: Michael Ash Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:14:49 -0500 Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <1061035503.565480@saucer.planet.gong> <3F3F115E.7EA09314@yahoo.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.203 User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.2 (PPC Mac OS X) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uwm.edu!mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148890 In article , ekj@ekj.vestdata.no wrote: > On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Michael Ash wrote: > > ekj@ekj.vestdata.no wrote: > > >> For most real-world sorts you can do O(n) sorting. This is for example > >> true for any sort where the field you're sorting on has a fixed size. > > > > If the field you're sorting has a fixed size, then there is a maximum > > number of objects. Thus the notation O(n) makes no sense. > > No there is no maximum number of objects. > > What is the maximum number of persons with names no longer than 10 > characters ? > > There is no maximum, it's perfectly reasonable to assume there can be > two persons with the same name, or two spaghettis with the same length. > It's also still meaningful to talk of sorting of such groups. Yeah, that was a very silly mistake for me to make. > Maybe you where thrown off by me talking about a "total ordering" ? I've > seen this term used in two different ways, I only meant that there can > be no loops, not that there can be no duplicates. (I.e. if A > B, B > C > and C > A, then no total ordering exists) No, I think I was thrown off by brain weasles or something. I'm familiar enough with the term "total ordering". ###### From: hawk@slytherin.ds.psu.edu (Dr. Richard E. Hawkins) Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Infinity's Shore Computer Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:21:55 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Penn State University, Center for Academic Computing Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <47e43b50.0308121019.6a2d93bf@posting.google.com> <989.355T2724T8835096@lr.net> <3F3EB226.3010200@formula1.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: slytherin.ds.psu.edu X-Trace: f04n12.cac.psu.edu 1061310115 22800 146.186.61.46 (19 Aug 2003 16:21:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@f04n12.cac.psu.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:21:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) Originator: hawk@slytherin.ds.psu.edu (Dr. Richard E. Hawkins) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.litech.org!news.ems.psu.edu!news.aset.psu.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:148889 In article <3F3EB226.3010200@formula1.demon.co.uk>, Lawrence Wilkinson wrote: >Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote: >> In article <989.355T2724T8835096@lr.net>, Ash Wyllie wrote: >>>Analog computers were popular for scientific calculations for a long time. >>>Prolly into the 60s. And there was an analog econometric computer built some >>>time ago. It used water IIRC. >> Oh, dear. The "hydraulic Keynesians." They made the analogy of the >> economy to water flowing through a path. Government "pump-priming" >> could raise the level (this thinking neglected the fact that the gov't >> had to take the water from someone, and merely put it back . . .). >> Lots of these were made for classroom use as a demonstration, but I"ve >> never heard of one being made for actual computation. >Have a look at the Moniac... >http://www.creativenz.govt.nz/venice/nz/moniac.html >for an example Yikes. I'd never realized that they'd gone *that* far. Still, as I'm readingit, it would demonstrate principles (of Keynesianism), rather than try to forecast . . . hawk -- Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign dochawk@psu.edu Smeal 178 (814) 375-4700 \ / against HTML mail These opinions will not be those of X and postings. Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \