Life In 19x19

EdLee wrote:

Krama wrote:Moore's law will fail in about 15-20 years...

The opposite could be true: the rate of improvement could be increasing -- Singularity essay (2001).

This article was written in 2001.

Today scientists are aware that Moore's law is failing since there is a limit to how small transistors can get.

Once you get to around 50 atoms in size then you start getting problems which I sadly can't understand.

Something to do with quantum theory.

Anyway, in 15-20 years transistors in processors will stop getting smaller.. so they will have to find some other solution for increasing the computing power.

That doesn't mean that Moore's law will fail. Only that we will need to find an alternative to transistors in order to keep up with the speed of advancement, which given the exponential rate of technology and science is not infeasible.

Certainly as far as we understand it now, Moore's Law is reaching its limits.

The thing is, we've thought that before, and it's kept on trucking. Roughly.

Interesting times.

Krama wrote:This article was written in 2001.

You missed the point. Einstein published his famous papers in 1905.
Newton's Principia was 1687. Feynman's QED papers, the late 1940's.
That it was written in 2001 does not automatically or necessarily render it obsolete.
Rather, it's the opposite: it demonstrates impressive foresight.

Krama wrote:Today scientists are aware that Moore's law is failing....

Again, you misunderstand. Not "today"; ever since Mr. Moore made this observation in 1965,
experts in the fields of physics, material science, and computer engineering, etc. have been studying this trend.
This includes Mr. Kurzweil, who understood and understands Moore's Law better than most of us here.

Krama wrote:...which I sadly can't understand.

Correct.

EdLee wrote:

Krama wrote:This article was written in 2001.

You missed the point. Einstein published his famous papers in 1905.
Newton's Principia was 1687. Feynman's QED papers, the late 1940's.
That it was written in 2001 does not automatically or necessarily render it obsolete.
Rather, it's the opposite: it demonstrates impressive foresight.

Krama wrote:Today scientists are aware that Moore's law is failing....

Again, you misunderstand. Not "today"; ever since Mr. Moore made this observation in 1965,
experts in the fields of physics, material science, and computer engineering, etc. have been studying this trend.
This includes Mr. Kurzweil, who understood and understands Moore's Law better than most of us here.

Krama wrote:...which I sadly can't understand.

Correct.

Tunneling and virtual particles, probably... Nice times to be a microchip designer

I've read somewhere Moore's law stated in terms of processing power, not only transistors, and it could be broken that way with a technological breakthrough (or through optic computing, which can theoretically go slightly lower than 20 atoms, IIRC)

Moore's law is that transistor size per area will double every couple years. I think it's fair to say that this will not go on for very much longer. 3d stacks on chips and other technologies will be used, but Moore's law itself will not stay.

RBerenguel wrote:Nice times to be a microchip designer

Sometimes the terminology cracks me up.

Technicolor
HiFi
Panavision
Micro$oft
Micron
widescreen
HDTV
UHDTV
nanotech

EdLee wrote:

RBerenguel wrote:Nice times to be a microchip designer

Sometimes the terminology cracks me up.

Technicolor
HiFi
Panavision
Micro$oft
Micron
widescreen
HDTV
UHDTV
nanotech

Nanochip then?

RBerenguel wrote:Nanochip then?

I think people will continue to do what they've always done: overload and change the meanings of the terms "high", "very high", "ultra", etc.

EdLee wrote:

RBerenguel wrote:Nanochip then?

I think people will continue to do what they've always done: overload and change the meanings of the terms "high", "very high", "ultra", etc.

Superdupertv XD

The discussion veered off the original topic but I think I should say that I've seen a number of go players deprecating chess. They are different games so the comparison as to which is the better game is comparing apples and oranges.

gowan wrote:The discussion veered off the original topic...

Welcome to the internet. Off topic:

gowan wrote:I've seen a number of go players deprecating chess.
They are different games so the comparison as to which is the better game is comparing apples and oranges.

Perennial debate; will never go away. Off topic:

I think a lot of go players are downright insulting to chess players, and vice versa. That's life.

DrStraw wrote: The second was a 3d player in UK in the early 70s. I did not really know him except by sight, but knew of him. I don't recall his name but I am sure someone else here will. He was some sort of chess champion: the British junior champion comes to mind, but that may be wrong. Anyway, he was good at chess. When he discovered go he pretty much gave up playing chess. Clearly Go impressed him more than chess.

Frank May?

Javaness2 wrote:I think a lot of go players are downright insulting to chess players, and vice versa. That's life.

DrStraw wrote: The second was a 3d player in UK in the early 70s. I did not really know him except by sight, but knew of him. I don't recall his name but I am sure someone else here will. He was some sort of chess champion: the British junior champion comes to mind, but that may be wrong. Anyway, he was good at chess. When he discovered go he pretty much gave up playing chess. Clearly Go impressed him more than chess.

Frank May?

That's the one.

a lot of go players are downright insulting to chess players, and vice versa. That's life.

Humans, like many other species, are very tribal and territorial.
In many ways, not much has changed the past 20,000 to 10M years.