[107841] in Cypherpunks
A digital way to filter...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim May)
Mon Jan 25 13:25:33 1999
In-Reply-To: <199901251424.IAA06675@einstein.ssz.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 10:08:42 -0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Reply-To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
At 6:24 AM -0800 1/25/99, Jim Choate wrote:
>Which is why I said it would need to be done in optical way back at the
>beginning of the entire track. I believe you asked me how I'd build it in
>hardware and somehow that's extrapolated into me stating that was the
>way to go so you could drop off-hand hints as to how stupid I am. Just for
>the record, I don't support the proposed software methodology either.
So you're now claiming that your vague talk about using _optical_ gizmos
means you were talking about quantum computers (qua quantum, not merely
modern solid state devices which happen to use various parts of QM)?
>
>I will give you credit for the nice strawman in which you exchange a
>discussion of technical merits into one of economics.
>
>There is no equivalent Baryon Number limit on the number of photons, there's
>no limit on the number of effective photons in the universe at any point, only
>the total energy locked into them as a whole.
No, Bill was (more politely than I can be) reminding you that tradeoffs
between time and space are terribly important in computations, that the
price one can pay for shorter computation time is in drastically increased
storage space needed. In this case, that more storage is needed than there
are particles in the universe--by many, many orders of magnitude.
If you don't understand this point, there is no point in going into more
detail.
>I happen to be a supporter of David Bohm's Many Worlds hypothesis for about
>the last 30 years.
Bzzzzt!! Wrong answer. Bohm was not the Many Worlds guy. In fact, he was
strongly critical of it. Cf. his "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" or
"The Undivided Universe" for more on his views. Cf. especially his "pilot
wave" interpretation.
The Many Worlds Interpretation is, rather, connected with Hugh Everett and
others (Wheeler, Graham, DeWitt, and more recently, Deutsch).
>But all in all I agree, a QM methodology is the most productive. So what is
>needed is a QM counter of modulo n. Pump it n times and have it output a
>zero if any of the sub-counts are zero, indicating a non-Prime n. At that
>point you move on to n+1. So the question becomes how does one build a QM
>counter such that it's modulo's correspond to all known primes less than n?
>Even more generaly what are the ways to build modulo counters via QM?
Do you think you understand this stuff you blather about?
--Tim May
Y2K -- Where were you when the lights went out?
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.
