From: turin (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Apr 05 2006 - 00:23:25 MDT
--- firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
From: "Philip Goetz" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: BLUE GENE and confusion about flops and tops and whistles
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 09:33:03 -0400
On 4/3/06, turin <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> --- email@example.com wrote:
> connections per neuron = 10^15 connections, 10^3 Hz (commonly cited 200 Hz,
> but it will turn out somewhat higher once you take in all the nuances, it
> always does) = 10^18 ops, basic op is a multiply-add, and that doesn't take
> Why do you say 1000 and not 200 Hz, I thought the neuron could only fire 200 times a second, and I thought that is where the Hz came from
Yes - what do you mean "it will turn out somewhat higher once you take
in all the nuances, it always does"? I don't understand that
statement at all. It seems to me that you can't say "it always does"
when there is only one phenomenon, not a class of them, under study.
Maybe I am wrong, but as far as neural processing is concerned, I am curious wehther or not it is a class of phenomenona. People talk about other things, and I dont' mean Penroses work, I mean memory in the RNA or something happening in synapses, these things. Maybe it is a class. I should hope it would be only one phenomena that would be very easy and convenient for us. Lots of processing power and very clever algorithms without any weird hardware complications or "tricks", but I dont know if tricks have been ruled out or not, though most people seem not to believe in them. I hope there are no tricks.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT