From: Koen Holtman (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Sep 25 2000 - 23:58:28 PDT
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Wayne E Baisley wrote:
> > 8. Are there software particles more fundamental than objects?
Bugs are more fundamental than objects.
> > 12. Are 1's and 0's the optimum base digital data standard? For
> > example, why not four values, like DNA?
> Could be three (0, 1, and "maybe" which may or may not have "mass",
> i.e., data)
Actually, I recall reading somewhere that 3 *is* the optimal base.
The argument goes something like this: suppose you have a linearly scaling
manufacturing process, so that for any N, a storage cell with N states
will have a size s*N for some constant s. How large should you make your
cells to get optimum storage density when you pack lots of cells together?
Turns out that the optimum is N=e (2.718....) which you should round to 3
for practical purposes.
> So, nobody's discovered the Higgs Datum, that Holy Handgrenade of
> Objects. They may never, but they'll certainly warp this sector of the
> universe trying.
Current bets are for a Higgs discovery in 2006. And actually we are more
worried about this sector of the universe warping our accelerator.
Also, we hope that by that time there will be no Fortran code anymore in
the Higgs discovery software.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 26 2000 - 00:01:57 PDT