Ah hah!
I understand now Lou, don't worry. You see I was confused for a second that you and me might be designing a system which could work in the real world. Seems you don't require this as an outcome. Which is fine, I guess. But you have to make it clear that you are allowed to bend physical rules like access speeds for silicon or hardware. It means I can too.
In fact, it means I can take your system to its logical conclusion and point out a nasty little truth about your entire idea. You see, what you have designed are a series of interconnected components, that when dealt with provide a change or a signal to other interconnected cells.
Put simply, your cells take some degree of input. Process it. And provide output. - If this sounds similair, it might be... Depends how far through that textbook you got.
Furthermore, as a collection of cells the input is stored in one queue, the output in another. On a switch input becomes output and vice versa. These lists of cells provide a series of instructions of which cells are to be affected on the next cycle. For the sake of historical correctness, lets store these lists on tape. But I mean, you can store it on whatever you want, including physics bending infinite write speed silicon if you want.
Next, you have at least one processor which deals with the Head of the queue, it takes it, performs the calculation needed to do whatever it is the cell needs to do, and provides some change in the output. As this processor deals with the head of the queue, lets be nice and call it, well... Lets call it the Head.
And then we're going to have changed the state of the system, and that will be stored somewhere. Lets call that somewhere the state.
Now we have infinite read and write speed. And, as we have infinitely many processors we presumably have infinitely many heads. Because, as shown in my argument in a previous post, as soon as you don't have either of these things your system becomes indeterminate in terms of real world processing time. Although, for this argument it doesn't particularily matter if you didn't. Because by now you must be noticing something happening here...
--The Million Dollar Question--
So Lou, when you have an infinite number of HEADS, working through a list of instructions stored on TAPE, with infinite read and write speed affecting the STATE and a TABLE who's instruction is, move one place forward. What do you think you have?
It looks like an incomplete, but otherwise Universal Turing Machine to me.
It also has horrible overheads for reraltime processing on anything other than n dedicated processors, where n is the number of *Single Components* in your program. It is why research into a similair thing cannot be used in real robots until hardware provides the ability for millions of dedicated processors, all running a simple vector transformation.
You are not revolutionary. You are not a rebel. You are just misinformed. And so convinced of your own intelligence that criticism is ignored. I'm more than willing to take this up with you on your own site rather than wasting more of the poor Moderatrix's time. But I get the feeling the argument would descend quickly into you calling me an idiot and deleteing any further comment of mine. It seems to be your style. Like a child unwilling to accept that their long held belief in Father Christmas is misguided.
I'll repent. I'll quite happily join the Church of Lou. Just as soon as you deal with the nasty little truths behind your system.
Intel cozying up to Google Chrome OS
