The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Theoretically, what would you do?  (Read 7548 times)

Offline teki

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Theoretically, what would you do?
« on: 24/12/2005 02:13:07 »
Don't think for a second that all this has anything to do with the real world, that would be ridiculous. It is just theoretically, what would you do, if this was you present situation:


Theoretically, if you had found a way to make computational device with these capabilities:

1. It scales from molecular level to makroscopic level, using a way less than a billionth of the energy for any particalur operation/logic(any classical computer).

2. It performs the Deutch-Jozca quantum algorithm in 1 calculation no matter was n was, just like at quantum computer could, but a classical system shouldn't.

3. It scales beyond binary etc., unsycronized. Mixed bi, tri etc. inputs/logics at all the same. n-state, instead of 2-state, 4-state - mixed states or pure states, instead of only pure states(classical and even quantum systems have a predefined limit).

4. It can be proved to outperform any classical device, no matter the level and nature of comparison. It can be proved to it matches or superceed quantum devices in some regards, in others it is not known/proven, yet.

5. The advantages of entanglement, quantum superpostions etc. all have equal representives in effect, but not actual design, so in effect the usual levels/limitations of decoherence, error correction etc. are irrelevant.


Everything possible at this very second, no research or development needed. You know everything from the background theory to the actual blueprints and physical representation of the entire system/logic. Everything have already been proven it works as stated, however the prototypes are destroyed and all you're left with is a laptop with all your work.

No one knows you have developed/proven it, or believes it, you're basic on your own with a "clean" uncompromising or known history. No affiliations of attachments to anyone/anything. You also have little in terms of resourses, beyond the laptop. You know nobody.

Given, that you are very aware of the potential of the system (beyond quantum based ones in some regards), what would you do, theoretically?


 

Offline Solvay_1927

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretically, what would you do?
« Reply #1 on: 24/12/2005 17:18:21 »
Being the season of goodwill, I'd share it with everyone by posting full details of how to build one on the Naked Scientists forum.
 

Offline teki

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretically, what would you do?
« Reply #2 on: 24/12/2005 22:55:38 »
If only I shared your belief in goodwill, I would tend to agree.

Interesting how two elements individually can be absolutely unpredictable by law, but merge the elements as one, then it(they) can be absolutely predictable by law. What if this is not exclusively a quantum phenomenon, but one that extends to macroscopic world too? Have anyone ever looked for it/them, or is the search dismissed offhand as "pointless"?
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretically, what would you do?
« Reply #3 on: 24/12/2005 23:36:12 »
theoretically, you would need to find yourself a champion. First, post your discovery in your bank for safe keeping with full details, this should be stamped and dated on receipt and will incur a minuscule charge for a year, which can be renewed yearly. This will prove the solution is yours alone, should it be contested down the road.

Forget the patent office unless you really want to give it away.

Obtain a signed letter of confidentiality from your champion, who should have the finance and motivation to see it through to fruition.

In the U.K. you automatically get full rights and protection to your own literature, so this will ensure you get a chance to prove your case in a courtroom should it be infringed upon.

Much cheaper than defending a patent, and publication is fully in your control, not some stupid rule in a patent office that says on x date we publish your patent for the world to copy and alter slightly in order to get around the infringement laws.

do not give away huge chunks of your rights to the discovery for someone dangling wholly inadequate funding in front of your eyes. if you go down this route, you will be in an unfortunate position of requiring additional funding and giving away even more of your rights to it.

The whole process is a ****ty business, designed at screwing the ass off the inventor and ensuring eternal poverty while rich pickings are had by the man / women with the money.

should you believe in the product enough, then sell your home, you cat and dog and even your ass to keep hold of all of the rights to it until such a time as the product has ac-rewed substantial interest and value, this is the time to hand over some of the kudos to others for a huge wedge of dosh.





"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
 

Offline teki

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretically, what would you do?
« Reply #4 on: 25/12/2005 00:23:58 »
Andrew K Fletcher, that sounds sensible.

Theoretically, one wouldn't be in the fortunate situation some would believe it to be, as soon as, one is aware of the consequences and potential gain/loss of it all. One could have the world, or lose it, the odds ridiculously favored towards the later.

A champion with the correct motivation that serves one and the work best, along with the resources to back it, wouldn't be easy to find. The discretion needed makes such a search even harder.
« Last Edit: 25/12/2005 00:35:54 by teki »
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: Theoretically, what would you do?
« Reply #5 on: 25/12/2005 03:24:41 »
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew K Fletcher

theoretically, you would need to find yourself a champion. First, post your discovery in your bank for safe keeping with full details, this should be stamped and dated on receipt and will incur a minuscule charge for a year, which can be renewed yearly. This will prove the solution is yours alone, should it be contested down the road.




Sensible

quote:

Forget the patent office unless you really want to give it away.



By all means delay patenting the idea, but if the idea is copyable, then patenting it will ultimately be your only protection.  If you only want to build these machines only for in-house use, then you might get away with relying of confidentiality (and it might be the better path); but if you intend to sell the machines, then others will anyway be able to reverse engineer your idea, so confidentiality will be pretty useless.

quote:


In the U.K. you automatically get full rights and protection to your own literature, so this will ensure you get a chance to prove your case in a courtroom should it be infringed upon.

Much cheaper than defending a patent, and publication is fully in your control, not some stupid rule in a patent office that says on x date we publish your patent for the world to copy and alter slightly in order to get around the infringement laws.



If you are talking about copyright (or is there some other form of legal protection you were thinking of), then that which is copyrightable is not patentable, and visa versa.

You can only patent ideas, and you can only copyright particular expressions of ideas.  This means that anyone can paraphrase your copyrighted document (i.e. express the same idea in a different form) without being in breach of copyright.

On the other hand, if the idea is patentable, then all variants of it are also patented.  The problem you have with patents is if someone claims the idea lacks originality (i.e. someone else already published or patented an idea very similar to yours, or the idea is obvious and anyone with any expertise in the field would have naturally come to the same idea that you came up with).  Given the radical nature of the idea, it clearly would not be obvious, but you can never be sure that the idea has not been published in some obscure journal by someone who never followed the idea through, or it is even possible that some big multinational has patented the idea amongst all the hundred of patents they apply for and never actually use.

quote:


The whole process is a ****ty business, designed at screwing the ass off the inventor and ensuring eternal poverty while rich pickings are had by the man / women with the money.




The whole process is designed to make the various patent offices highly profitable – and they do quite nicely out of it too – they and the lawyers.

The worst of all is the US patent office – it pretty much lets anyone patent anything, and then lets the lawyers sort out whether the patent has any merit.  The European patent offices at least try and give you the courtesy of making sure the idea has merit before taking your money, and saves you on legal fee further down the line.
« Last Edit: 25/12/2005 03:37:04 by another_someone »
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretically, what would you do?
« Reply #6 on: 25/12/2005 09:03:16 »
the problem with patented ideas and inventions is that if you don't have enough money to police the patent, it is not worth the ink on the paper.

This is why you need a champion, they will be in a position to police your patent.

A lot of people think Dyson got rich from his vacuum cleaner, he did, but only when amway (at least I think it was Amway) decided to copy his idea and put it into practice, he then successfully proceeding through the legal system to victory and the money from which gave him the funding to go into production.

Personally, I have a 14 page apology from the patent office, which effectively screws up any chance of a world patent, so one of my inventions was trashed before I could get it into production.

Eventually, as another someone stated, you will inevitably go down the road of a patent, but only when you have sufficient backing to police it.

I wish I could sound as positive as another someone but experience has taught me well.

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretically, what would you do?
« Reply #7 on: 25/12/2005 12:21:02 »
This might prove useful for you

when you feel the timing is right for your patent, lodge it in the Canada Patent office initially. Why?, if memory seves me right, they allow two years before they publish your patent, buying you valuable time to reach your goals before everyone else becomes aware of this. Do look into the facts though as this is from over ten years ago and times change the way these organisations update their rules.

Also, Canadian Patent costs work out far cheeper. You will need a Canadian resident to assist with an address or a Canadian Patent Agent

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
 

Offline teki

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretically, what would you do?
« Reply #8 on: 25/12/2005 14:48:16 »
Thank you both for your insights, I really appreciate it. The questions is of importance to me, even though it is without relation to reality.

For the sake of argument:

1. Lets theoretically say the technology, logic and science needed to make it all work, was simplicity incarnated.

2. Lets say everything needed for the device to work, was already presently developed/research before 1940 - key parts before 1930, other fundamental parts from before 1900.

3. Lets say it was 'just' a matter of seeing the connections between this 'everything', and one ended up with litterally a world/science that appears to "next level" beyond quantum computing/science.

4. Lets say it is a system, that unites all levels/areas of science into one, and with the knowledge of the system one recognizes the same system etched in reality, everywhere, and on every concievable level. It binds, units, and makes the unrelated/unpredictable related and predictable. Basicly, the system must be applied to all excisting science, and whatever one ends up with is this new united system. There are very strong grounds to believe, that this can be done again and again - the united system applied to itself, making a new level of the system possible.

5. The device made from this system, can emulate/simulate parts of system. Not unlike quantum computers simulating reality redefined by the science/logic quantum theory/effects.

6. As the person who saw the connections and explored the system, then made the physical versions of it... You're modest and care absolutely nothing for prizes, awards, recognition etc., however you care about resources to develop the system, and keeping continued control over it.


All this, makes not for only a processing revolution, but also a scientifical/philosophical one. There would be broad consequences, if such knowledge of said system/technology was to be released publicaly.

Last, if one was in this situation, it would be simple curiousity to make a reversible multiplication device, that obviously would make finding unique primes in factorization an always 1 calculation process, no matter how many thousand of digits one would like to add. One would presumely have tested this out and found it to be true, but also be aware of the numberous encryption schemes that deploy this and similiar 'NPC problems'.

It would also be known, if already theorized quantum encryption schemes could already be broken or not, since quantum logic is a mere point of subsystem, in this overall universal system. If the answer to the last is "yes, quantum encryption would be as easy to break with this system, as quantum systems break classical encryptions", then stuff gets even more complicated.

Are people really that ready for such changes/consequences, or would something like this be in the "everyone would love the idea of it being made, but nobody would really want it to be made"?

What is the chance, even with law etc. behind one, of anyone really abiding by it?
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: Theoretically, what would you do?
« Reply #9 on: 25/12/2005 15:10:01 »
First point is (with the sometimes dubious exception that the US patent office sometimes allows things to be patented that it should not), you cannot patent science.  To be more precise, you cannot patent a discovery, only an invention.

If you discover a basic law of nature that allows you to do something that could not be be done before, you can neither patent nor copyright that law of nature.  On the other hand, if you invent a machine that uses that law of nature, you can patent that machine, and all machines that work similarly; but if someone else creates a machine that uses the same law of nature but in a very different way to the way that you use the law of nature, your patent cannot prevent them from patenting their own very different machine.  Often, this comes down to how cleverly you can word your patent, to try and make as generalised a description of your machine as possible without ending up simply describing a law of nature.  This is where, in theory at least, a good patent agent should know his business, and know how patents should be worded (on the other hand, there are a lot of bad patent agents, and even a few unscrupulous ones – and they do come very expensive).  The big multinationals will all use their own tame (tried and trusted) patent agents, but I cannot say if it affordable for the little guys (maybe Andrew has more direct experience of this – my knowledge is only theoretical).

One other thing that should be mentioned – although it has been said from the confidentiality perspective, but it must also be said from the legal perspective, do not publish anything until you have made a patent application (the application is not the same as the granting of the patent, but that is the point when some sort of protection starts to kick in).  The guys who invented the RSA public key encryption system managed to patent the invention in the USA, but not anywhere else in the world, because they had first published their ideas in Scientific American, and the other patent offices all said it was previously published work, and therefore already in the public domain, and could not be patented.
 

Offline teki

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretically, what would you do?
« Reply #10 on: 25/12/2005 16:07:24 »
Could the logic of the system and thus all devices created thereby, be patented? If it could be worded such, that all grounds were covered, meaning you couldn't create a similiar device without using the logic - would that be what you're refering to?

Isn't there something like secret patents? Patents protected by goverments and/or orginizations in secrecy? Wouldn't a patent of this nature, be something of interest to keep secret, because of the obvious advantages of being the only country/enclave with such technology/capability?  

To me, it appears that somehow it is more simple to develop such a system, than to "get away with it". Really does look to be a system designed to damage the inventor/discoverer. I had been adviced, that if ever someone ever made something like that possible, the real complicated stuff began after everything is completed/ready.
« Last Edit: 25/12/2005 16:11:19 by teki »
 

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: Theoretically, what would you do?
« Reply #11 on: 25/12/2005 16:37:40 »
You don’t even have to publish it to lose it.
If you tell anyone other than a member of your direct family or anyone who hasn’t signed a non disclosure contract you can lose your rights to it as it can then be deemed public property.

In the UK you also have a year to change the wordings drawings, specifications or make any additions to the original idea whilst still being covered, which allows you to increase the coverage and detail of your original patent.

You need to be quite clear and specific with the wording and any drawings,. if your not then you risk losing any court case and your patent if someone steals your idea because your patent wasn't specific or detailed enough.


Michael                                      
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: Theoretically, what would you do?
« Reply #12 on: 25/12/2005 17:27:07 »
quote:
Originally posted by teki

Could the logic of the system and thus all devices created thereby, be patented? If it could be worded such, that all grounds were covered, meaning you couldn't create a similiar device without using the logic - would that be what you're refering to?



You could word it that the could not create a similar device, the emphasis has to be on how to define your similarity.

quote:

Isn't there something like secret patents? Patents protected by goverments and/or orginizations in secrecy? Wouldn't a patent of this nature, be something of interest to keep secret, because of the obvious advantages of being the only country/enclave with such technology/capability?  



Yes, there are 'secret patents' as you call them.  In this country, if a patent is deemed to gave military or national security implications (don't know the exact criteria), the Government can slap a 'D Notice' on the patent that prohibits its publication.  I'm not sure what the implications of that are for application for international patents.

quote:

To me, it appears that somehow it is more simple to develop such a system, than to "get away with it". Really does look to be a system designed to damage the inventor/discoverer. I had been adviced, that if ever someone ever made something like that possible, the real complicated stuff began after everything is completed/ready.



150 years ago, patents were a good idea for the small inventor – these days they are a necessary liability.

The vast majority of patents are filed by large corporations, and most of them will never actually be put to any use.

What will happen is the MegaCorps plc. Will have a research group that comes up with lots of interesting ideas.  It will patent these ideas (maybe several hundred of them in a year), but will only ever use a very small handful of them itself.  Fred Smith, it his garage, invents this brilliant device – he thinks no-one has thought of the idea before.  After spending his life savings creating a viable product using his idea, he starts to make some money out of it.  Then one morning he gets a letter from MegaCorps plc's lawyers that his idea is too similar to one of the ideas their own research groups had patented, and would Fred Smith kindly hand over all his profits to MegaCorps plc.

Fred Smith then has a number of possible avenues.  He (or his lawyers) may look at the patents and say that Fred Smith has no option but to comply.  Or they may decide that Fred Smith has a good case, but he would be bankrupted by the legal fees involved in defending his case, so he'd better negotiate some compromise deal with MegaCorp plc.  Or they may decide that Fred Smith has no become so rich he can actually afford to defend and win the case.  Or they may decide it is time for Fred Smill to sell his company to AnotherCorp plc., and let AnotherCorp plc. and MegaCorp plc. fight it out in the courts.  One way or another, the people who win will be the lawyers (and ofcourse the patent offices who keep receiving fees for all the patents).

Guys like Richard Dyson are the exception, not the rule.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: Theoretically, what would you do?
« Reply #13 on: 25/12/2005 17:33:13 »
quote:
Originally posted by ukmicky
You need to be quite clear and specific with the wording and any drawings,. if your not then you risk losing any court case and your patent if someone steals your idea because your patent wasn't specific or detailed enough.



As I understand it, you have to be careful in a number of ways.

While you are right that you have to be sufficiently specific that the court can clearly see if what someone else has done is within the scope of your patent or not, and that your patent refers to a particular invention and does not go further than that which you have actually invented.

On the other hand, also bear in mind that your patent will be published, and sometimes using a little bit of obscure language may help obfuscate to your competition what it is that you are actually doing.

I don't know how much scope you have for obfuscation before the courts start taking a dim view of it.
 

Offline teki

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretically, what would you do?
« Reply #14 on: 25/12/2005 19:43:56 »
Thank you all, for your paticipation and insights.

Again, the subject is theoretical, and arise from the question if it possible to invent something, that is too good and what eventual complication would arise.

To me, it appears that the example used would be asking for trouble, unless a secret and non-commercial path was chosen. Otherwise, release to public domain and then watch the consequences unfold appears to be the only assured thing to have.
« Last Edit: 26/12/2005 19:19:28 by teki »
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: Theoretically, what would you do?
« Reply #15 on: 27/12/2005 04:44:46 »
quote:
Originally posted by teki
Otherwise, release to public domain and then watch the consequences unfold appears to be the only assured thing to have.



Indeed, this is certainly one way to go.

If you wish to place the idea in the public domain, then the sooner you do it the better to pre-empt anyone else placing a patent monopoly on the idea.

One may also argue that if you can place the idea in the public domain, and create enough public interest; even though you will never make the huge fortune you would have made if to had gained a patent monopoly on the idea, but you can still make some money by virtue of your selling your expertise to those whom you have interested in your idea.  This is the premise of many people involved in open source projects.
 

Offline teki

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretically, what would you do?
« Reply #16 on: 28/12/2005 16:59:24 »
Anyone from Denmark in these forums?

There is question or two I would like to have answered, but not in open.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: Theoretically, what would you do?
« Reply #17 on: 29/12/2005 10:39:47 »
When this question was posed I thought it was pointless but it has developed into quite an interesting discussion relating to intellectual property.  As I am someone who has patented quite a lot if things in my life I think that my experience could be useful.  Some of my patents were and still are technical successes but not financial ones (for me) and others did thave a modest financial success and others just didn't come to anything.

Generally if you've got a good idea the best thing is to apply it in some way that people will want, and then expand the area of application.  I agree that development costs usually require a financial champion and that is why I have always worked for a large industrial company who would finance the ideas if I could sell them to the management.  I admit I'm too lazy to be an entrepreneur.  However I am enjoying a pleasant and financially secure retirement,  although I have not made piles of money from my ideas.

The idea and the development and use of the idea is the important bit not maling youself the richest person in the world.



Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
« Last Edit: 29/12/2005 10:41:46 by Soul Surfer »
 

Offline teki

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretically, what would you do?
« Reply #18 on: 29/12/2005 12:49:34 »
Soul Surfer, thank you for sharing your personal experience with intellectual rights/property.

I agree with you, the top priority is to develop and use the idea, not fame or fortune. To me, processing capability goes hand in hand with technological/scientifiacal/intellectual evolution. If this cannot be realized one way, public domain is there a last resort - it will be released regardless.

In regards to initial development costs, how much further development would actually be needed, before some "critical" level of development was made?

Meaning, if the cost of making prototypes to the complexity of say a simple calculator, is so low that I could fund it myself. Would that be complex enough, if it had 10 decimals for end product, logic of + - * / and same four functions reversed (so reverse processing could be demostrated to work, P/NP problems would then be P/P problems)?

Could be initial area of application be "The Reverse Calculator"? Expansion from there would naturally be towards microprocessor logic, and would require further funding I wouldn't have, but with the R-Calculator I could demostrate effectively the technology to potential investment, without giving any of the inner workings away, correct?

Any thoughts you or anyone have are always welcome.

Agree with your last statement, and I practice it at this very moment, as always.
« Last Edit: 29/12/2005 12:53:53 by teki »
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: Theoretically, what would you do?
« Reply #19 on: 29/12/2005 18:54:57 »
Can't have any thoughts because after the first couple of paragraphs what you have said does not make any sense to me.  Just like your first question and one or two bits wheher you appear to "get technical" in between.

One thing that I do know is that if you need support from a financier you will need to be able to explain your idea and its benefits to a "british standard idiot" and If I can't understand what you are saying you have no hope unless you get into a situation like the story of "the emperors new clothes" when people do not want to admit what they dont know!  Remember however if the Emperor had thought a bit he could easily have got out of the problem by pointing out that he was sure that there were quite a lot of fools in his country so the material that they were offering was unsuitable.   :D

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
« Last Edit: 29/12/2005 18:56:31 by Soul Surfer »
 

Offline teki

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretically, what would you do?
« Reply #20 on: 30/12/2005 02:57:35 »
I believe, you're perfectly able to understand it, and what advantages that would be even to such a simple processing device. Here is an example of what a simple 'Reverse Calculator' can do, that a normal calculator can't:

A simple multiplication problem could be:

256 * 256 = ?

That would be very simple for any calculator or human to calculate. However, if the logic of multiplication is reversed, then it isn't simple anymore, even though the end result has less digits:

? * ? = 377

In a logical sense, there is no difference to the two problems, but in practical sense there is. There are many reasons for this, but the primary one is that there is only 1 possible solution to the first problem (normal multiplication), but there could (or couldn't) be 1 or more possible solutions for the second problem (reverse multiplication). A normal calculator could always solve the multiplication problem in 'one calculation', but never reverse multiplication problems. The more digits one adds to problem, it would take more and more extra calculations relative to if the problem was not reversed, but had the exact same amount of digits.

If one adds 1000 digits to the situation, it could take a second to the normal multiplication. However, it would take 1000 of years to solve the multiplication for the fastests computer, if the problem was reversed.

Just think about it. [known 500 digits] * [known 500 digits] = [unknown 1000 digits]. Doable by the PC in front of you in a few seconds tops. [unknown 500 digits] * [unknown 500 digits] = [known 1000 digits], not doable by your PC in your lifetime, if the two unknowns are primes.

A reverse calculator, would always take an equal amount of calculations - no matter if it is normal functions like divide / multiply or their reverse counter parts. For any logic/system of mathematics, there are an equal reverse logic/system. A prototype would be doable with 10 digits, but with 1000 digits it would be very complex and not practial with low funds.

Theoretically, anyways.
« Last Edit: 30/12/2005 03:01:06 by teki »
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: Theoretically, what would you do?
« Reply #21 on: 30/12/2005 11:35:21 »
OK modulo aritmatic has been around for decates  Why do you want to perform the reverse calculation?  The only case that I am familiar with is public key cryptography

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
 

Offline teki

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretically, what would you do?
« Reply #22 on: 01/01/2006 13:04:10 »
Reverse calculation is useful for many reasons, and is in itself a powerful testament about the system.

Reverse logic is only possible, if energy is used exclusively on the movement of information through the fuction. No energy must be used by the function performed on the information, that passes through that same function. Normally, there would be a minimal need for energy to define the logic of the function, and another need to define the data that function operates upon. That is not the case in this system, and theoretically it can be proved no other energy is used in the function, aside from the energy used to define the data.

Since all mathematical fuction can be performed this way, the Reverse Calculator would demostrate the potential for "1 pass, extreme low energy, extremely small, universal level processing", that essentially can solve any mathematical problem we could ever possibly come up with. Since science and all evolution relies upon processing capability, I would think this in itself would be enough.

Think about it, this would speed evolution up to extremes few could possibly follow.

Ignoring all that, you have yourself answered your own question, to why I want to perform reverse calculation: public key cryptography. Really, wouldn't that in itself be enough? Potential demostrated for +1000 digit RSA encryption or decryption, a couple of trillion times a second, and it would only a matter of enough basic components (cost would be n^2 relative to itself).

Only quantum logic/computers has shown the possiblity of performing anywhere near this potential, and this should still be theoretics, as it has never been shown to be effective on a scale needed.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: Theoretically, what would you do?
« Reply #23 on: 01/01/2006 16:37:10 »
As far as I can tell most of that tirade is total nonsence assembled from a few significant sounding words. Come back to reality. we are talking genuine science here.  If you want any attention you've got to explain your ideas clearly in terms that people can understand otherwise you're just included in my list of nutters.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
 

Offline teki

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretically, what would you do?
« Reply #24 on: 03/01/2006 20:08:25 »
Since you don't understand much of this, and it is established science ... there are piles of links, books, and other references to all this, then I am wasting my time. Be not mistaken, this is not nonsense or nutty stuff. Your lack of understanding is a testament of yourself, not me or the subjects at hand.

This is all theoretics, and I am very much "in reality". This has nothing to do with me personally, as I keep pointing out. You really shouldn't have wasted your time on all this, since you don't fundamentally understand what it is all about.

Your statements about quantum computing in another topic, is also testament to your ignorance about the basics of what all this is about.

My presence at this board has served its purpose perfectly. Thank you all for your time. Bye.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Theoretically, what would you do?
« Reply #24 on: 03/01/2006 20:08:25 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums