![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
I dunno, this article just sounds plain old confused and wrong to me; I'm tempted to suggest deletion. Arguing that a hung gate is a form of quantum indeterminacy is certainly a novel idea, but I think a whole lotta work would need to be done to prove this, in particular, ruling out purely classical explanations like ground bounce and what not. I doubt that anyone who actually designs real transistors for a living would agree with such an assessment. I'd need to see something other than handwaving to believe this. linas 04:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe this:
For many reasons. Resolution into stability is not decoherence. Metastability might theoretically be a result of superposition of states, but I have seen no evidence for this in practice.
See International Journal of Modern Physics C
Can Quantum Synchronizers Solve the Metastability Problem of Asynchronous Digital Systems?, Vol. 1, No. 4 (1990) 329-342. Reinhard Männer
Abstract:
-- CSTAR 20:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
This is indeed curious. First of all the above abstract talks about synchronizers instead of arbiters. Does the article explain the difference? Not much confusion exists about the practical importance of metastability for arbiters. Conventional arbiters unavoidably show metastable behavior in principle and also in practice, if properly designed. The metastability of properly designed arbiters has been measured and well qualified many times in the literature. Is this article informed about the literature? Has anyone ever cited this article? Thanks,-- Carl Hewitt 21:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Indeterminacy seems to be suggested by Godel's proof that mathematical systems cannot prove themselves. This occurs in practice where diagnosis of a failing machine is extremely difficult without an external system of test intruments. And the nature of information being entropy, a purely statistical measure, suggests that one of the reasons computer software fails particularly when it is very large programs, is that the meaning of one bit in the context of the whole must be close to perfectly consistent with the whole when the whole system exists in a thermodynamic environment in which entropy is also an important measure. Seems best to leave the article simply described as controversial. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.136.147.134 ( talk • contribs) 04:41, 1 July, 2006 (UTC)
I slapped the POV label on this article for the following reasons:
Please note that this very same issue has already been argued on the talk page to metastability in electronics, which has now been moved to arbiter (electronics) (that is, see Talk:arbiter (electronics).) linas 14:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Some further editing is needed. The introduction doesn't say what indeterminacy is, nor where to find out what it is.
The second paragraph is garbled. I'm sorry I don't understand these sentences:
I merged in Actor model, mathematical logic, and physics as per discussion pages.-- Carl Hewitt 23:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Here we go again. I'm not saying that mathematical logic can predict the outcome of a calculation, because of the indeterminacy, but it can determine a set of possible computations, and potentially verify that any terminating calculation solves the desired problem. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Quantum indeterminacy is usually mentioned when one is concerned with the predictability or nonpredictability of events. For example, predictability explicitly arises in the earlier physical theory now known as classical mechanics, which lead to a philosophical position of Scientific determinism. Some philosophers have tried to identify the basic types of indeterminacy that underly the inability of humans to predict the future. Four types of indeterminacy are:
Has anyone thought that the indeterminacy is due to noise once the arbiter becomes metastable? 24.23.213.158 23:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Currently reads "Indeterminacy in concurrent computation is concerned with the effects of indeterminacy in concurrent computation" - so it's concerned with the effects of itself, nice. Surely someone can think of a better intro than that. 82.39.140.240 ( talk) 22:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be frank, but this section is nonsensical:
The mathematical properties of a formal system has *nothing* to do with the physical implementations of it. One can formalize a programming language using a multitude of mathematical tools (such as, er, a logic..), but this unfortunately does not affect its physical realization.
To be clear: prolog *was* formalized (see http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.40.954 and its citations). This is a mathematical, abstract property, that *does not affect* the indeterminacy a physical system that implements prolog might have (other than the semantics of the language itself).
(Also, please note that many languages has been formalized with some 'logic', even the ones that does not favor the 'logic programming' paradigm) -- 187.40.172.119 ( talk) 03:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The hard part is formalizing concurrency. The formalization of ISO Prolog does not have any concurency. The physical indeterminacy of hardware used in the implementation of concurrent programming languages results in indeterminacy in the behavior of programs. It is well known that concurent programs cannot be reduced to pure logic (see Common sense for concurrency and inconsistency tolerance using Direct Logic(TM) and the Actor Model). 64.134.238.26 ( talk) 20:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The word "indeterminacy" is linked to some pages - which bring you back to here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.186.3 ( talk) 01:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
This article reads as if it were written by someone related to Carl Hewitt who is apparently on probation at Wikipedia. The text is mainly focused on the Actor model and Logic Programming, there is very little about the general topic. When I googled " Indeterminacy in concurrent computation" on 16 April 2013, the hits I found on the first few pages of results seemed to be either directly derived from this article, or in recent articles by Carl Hewitt himself. Hence, I don't believe that Indeterminacy in concurrent computation is a worthy topic for Wikipedia. Just to double check, I just googled "indeterminacy"+"concurrent computation", even when the two phrases are separated all the hits on the first few pages seemed to be derived from this article or the recent works of Carl Hewitt. Pmokeefe ( talk) 17:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Uh, someone knowledgeable needs to decide whether it's tendentious overreach to motivate an entire typology of concurrent computation on the seldom-observed Buridan's ass (see specifically Buridan's Principle) and then this article needs to be made comprehensible in a proper Wikipedia idiom, or it needs to die in a fire, with no in between. — MaxEnt 22:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indeterminacy in concurrent computation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
I dunno, this article just sounds plain old confused and wrong to me; I'm tempted to suggest deletion. Arguing that a hung gate is a form of quantum indeterminacy is certainly a novel idea, but I think a whole lotta work would need to be done to prove this, in particular, ruling out purely classical explanations like ground bounce and what not. I doubt that anyone who actually designs real transistors for a living would agree with such an assessment. I'd need to see something other than handwaving to believe this. linas 04:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe this:
For many reasons. Resolution into stability is not decoherence. Metastability might theoretically be a result of superposition of states, but I have seen no evidence for this in practice.
See International Journal of Modern Physics C
Can Quantum Synchronizers Solve the Metastability Problem of Asynchronous Digital Systems?, Vol. 1, No. 4 (1990) 329-342. Reinhard Männer
Abstract:
-- CSTAR 20:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
This is indeed curious. First of all the above abstract talks about synchronizers instead of arbiters. Does the article explain the difference? Not much confusion exists about the practical importance of metastability for arbiters. Conventional arbiters unavoidably show metastable behavior in principle and also in practice, if properly designed. The metastability of properly designed arbiters has been measured and well qualified many times in the literature. Is this article informed about the literature? Has anyone ever cited this article? Thanks,-- Carl Hewitt 21:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Indeterminacy seems to be suggested by Godel's proof that mathematical systems cannot prove themselves. This occurs in practice where diagnosis of a failing machine is extremely difficult without an external system of test intruments. And the nature of information being entropy, a purely statistical measure, suggests that one of the reasons computer software fails particularly when it is very large programs, is that the meaning of one bit in the context of the whole must be close to perfectly consistent with the whole when the whole system exists in a thermodynamic environment in which entropy is also an important measure. Seems best to leave the article simply described as controversial. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.136.147.134 ( talk • contribs) 04:41, 1 July, 2006 (UTC)
I slapped the POV label on this article for the following reasons:
Please note that this very same issue has already been argued on the talk page to metastability in electronics, which has now been moved to arbiter (electronics) (that is, see Talk:arbiter (electronics).) linas 14:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Some further editing is needed. The introduction doesn't say what indeterminacy is, nor where to find out what it is.
The second paragraph is garbled. I'm sorry I don't understand these sentences:
I merged in Actor model, mathematical logic, and physics as per discussion pages.-- Carl Hewitt 23:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Here we go again. I'm not saying that mathematical logic can predict the outcome of a calculation, because of the indeterminacy, but it can determine a set of possible computations, and potentially verify that any terminating calculation solves the desired problem. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Quantum indeterminacy is usually mentioned when one is concerned with the predictability or nonpredictability of events. For example, predictability explicitly arises in the earlier physical theory now known as classical mechanics, which lead to a philosophical position of Scientific determinism. Some philosophers have tried to identify the basic types of indeterminacy that underly the inability of humans to predict the future. Four types of indeterminacy are:
Has anyone thought that the indeterminacy is due to noise once the arbiter becomes metastable? 24.23.213.158 23:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Currently reads "Indeterminacy in concurrent computation is concerned with the effects of indeterminacy in concurrent computation" - so it's concerned with the effects of itself, nice. Surely someone can think of a better intro than that. 82.39.140.240 ( talk) 22:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be frank, but this section is nonsensical:
The mathematical properties of a formal system has *nothing* to do with the physical implementations of it. One can formalize a programming language using a multitude of mathematical tools (such as, er, a logic..), but this unfortunately does not affect its physical realization.
To be clear: prolog *was* formalized (see http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.40.954 and its citations). This is a mathematical, abstract property, that *does not affect* the indeterminacy a physical system that implements prolog might have (other than the semantics of the language itself).
(Also, please note that many languages has been formalized with some 'logic', even the ones that does not favor the 'logic programming' paradigm) -- 187.40.172.119 ( talk) 03:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The hard part is formalizing concurrency. The formalization of ISO Prolog does not have any concurency. The physical indeterminacy of hardware used in the implementation of concurrent programming languages results in indeterminacy in the behavior of programs. It is well known that concurent programs cannot be reduced to pure logic (see Common sense for concurrency and inconsistency tolerance using Direct Logic(TM) and the Actor Model). 64.134.238.26 ( talk) 20:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The word "indeterminacy" is linked to some pages - which bring you back to here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.186.3 ( talk) 01:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
This article reads as if it were written by someone related to Carl Hewitt who is apparently on probation at Wikipedia. The text is mainly focused on the Actor model and Logic Programming, there is very little about the general topic. When I googled " Indeterminacy in concurrent computation" on 16 April 2013, the hits I found on the first few pages of results seemed to be either directly derived from this article, or in recent articles by Carl Hewitt himself. Hence, I don't believe that Indeterminacy in concurrent computation is a worthy topic for Wikipedia. Just to double check, I just googled "indeterminacy"+"concurrent computation", even when the two phrases are separated all the hits on the first few pages seemed to be derived from this article or the recent works of Carl Hewitt. Pmokeefe ( talk) 17:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Uh, someone knowledgeable needs to decide whether it's tendentious overreach to motivate an entire typology of concurrent computation on the seldom-observed Buridan's ass (see specifically Buridan's Principle) and then this article needs to be made comprehensible in a proper Wikipedia idiom, or it needs to die in a fire, with no in between. — MaxEnt 22:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indeterminacy in concurrent computation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)