51

Re: about data storage

Hello, Voblin, you wrote: V> it is mandatory. Without variants. But further nuances of possible technical implementation begin. It seems to you. V> If the bit of the data is encoded by a state of the material object  object it is easily considered under the formula log 2 (N) where N - an amount of perceptible states. A logarithm, of course, terribly lazy function. Titanic efforts powerfully improved technology and magnification of it N twice, and what achieved? Received a scoring in 1 shameful bit. Fie. But it is not necessary to forget that the logarithm of fair infinity is equal to fair infinity. So if to find  fair infinity, and to it to stick, the task bottomless  appears solved. In the physicist there are no fair infinity. See the quantum mechanics. V> very much that is measured in the physicist by real numbers. For example? V> Some values, of course, not is fair real number. For example, an electrical charge. There all rests against an electron charge. But even if to discard all not the presents rial-nambery, all the same there will be still an abyss of the presents. It can frighten a little bit, but the material world is that that in its any small trifle sits and impudently to us the infinite variety grins. No, the material world is that that the infinity in practice quickly appears simply big integer number. V> about quanta and uncertainty I know. But this uncertainty even if it really is a sentence not subject to the appeal (now it in the status beautiful, repeatedly checked up, but nevertheless hypotheses), works with all rigidity inherent in it only on those objects for which it is formulated. To us forbade to know simultaneously pulse and particle position? , we will not be. At once three variants and the law to observe, and a candy to eat: V> 1. And the hell with him, with position. Absolutely not interesting. Let it will be "plus-minus infinity". We will be hooked to pulse and  there how many not laziness. In that case, the size of your carrier becomes infinite. In a pocket it is possible to suppose only very small carrier. If we restrict coordinates to its limits it appears that the error of measurement of pulse is rather great. The maximum size of pulse is restricted by a velocity of light, therefore infinitely precisely to measure position too does not quit. V> 2. And the hell with him, with pulse. Let it will be any. In that side even we will not look. We will be  . See above. V> 3. And the hell with them, with positions and pulses of particles. On particles there are other fish in the sea. There are things, to which quantum theory any side not . For example, gravitation. Meanwhile all attempts to marry quanta with gravitation with a crash failed. Whether instead of  gravitation? Or, if with it too does not grow together, something else? And what gravitation? You want to encode there something by means of mass? We again rest that the infinite amount of particles will weigh infinitely much, and restricted volume it leads to a collapse. V> the quantum theory - an outstanding piece. Eventually, it is extreme of the microcosmos physics, simultaneously possessing both property , and property of usefulness. Standard, for example, model of subatomic particles though and forged, but on the practical level certainly useless. And the string theory - so that simultaneously both useless, and not checked. V> but it is necessary to understand that the quantum theory - it is exact not the history end. Those professional physicists-theorists with whom remained though a droplet of intellectual honesty, recognize that they do not have any worthy explanation to that fact that the photon climbs at once through two holes. A problem of physicists that all people share on two unequal groups. People from  group simply do not understand physical explanations - they do not have for this purpose necessary concepts. People from smaller group of idiotic questions like "as it is a photon climbs at once through two holes" do not set. Any attempt to prepare the person to explanations leads to that it is simply moved from one group to another. V> the scholastic approach "here the formula which works and which should be learned" - not for serious boys. A situation really ridiculous. At me on a nose the instrument exploiting wave properties of photons (points), but the world science has no that any distinct understanding as such  generally can work. Officially recognized open question. A problem? Yes in any time not a problem. The task. At you and at physicists the treatment of the term "understanding" simply differs. For the physicist "understanding" means development of model which adequately describes the observable world - i.e." Here the formula which works ". If the formula describes all known observations plus is able to predict correctly result of the future observation - , we"understand"enough. If there are places which the formula does not describe - here then we"do not understand"something. It is necessary to saw the formula further, there does not come yet understanding. In quantum optics, for example, absolutely not clear places any more does not remain. But you do not worry - there are also such people who sincerely consider that for, say, planes" that any distinct understanding as such  generally can work, the world science has no." . That is to calculate the form of wings and the device of engines we are able, and here "the present understanding", carrying power whence undertakes - is not present. Simply you want, that the difficult phenomena had such explanation which coincides with your is primitive-intuitive concepts about the nature device. That is to imagine a photon as a ball you can, and imagine it as a wave packet - is not present. Because in a life there is no such piece which would conduct itself as a wave packet. Well here I will disappoint you - such here understanding of quantum mechanics, or relativistic effects, alas, will be never. Home concepts work in conditions of life. And in macro- and to the concept micro-world absolutely others. V> generally, a little bit thinking, came to a conclusion that actually in bottomless storage to use really any. Having capacious enough (petabytes) storage and limitation of throughput of the interface, it is possible to imitate easily by means of hash functions unlimited address space. Probability of that somebody sometime reveals fraud,  is small. Quite right, and becomes in limitless cloudy storages. V> real need to store infinitely many bit appears if to learn only to operate with the data of the infinite digit capacity. At least them to add. It gives at once precedent of the infinite computing power, which it is possible to think how to use. It is really basic other computing technology. And from forgetting about a problem of shortage of a place on a hard, any considerably delightful vau-effect to receive it does not turn out. The infinite computing power should for finite time fulfill an infinite loop

52

Re: about data storage

Hello, Ops, you wrote: V>> By the way, here and the useful application of a flash card. No, not espionage for citizens, and protection given by enciphering on a method of a code notepad. If Alisy and the Bean have two identical bottomless flash cards hammered identical  they can organize such channel with which even it is theoretically impossible to crack. Any even divine . Still Shannon proved  a code notepad. Ops> remains  this  for finite time. Time this that a trifle, in comparison with that is necessary  TWO IDENTICAL .

53

Re: about data storage

Hello, Voblin, you wrote: V> hammered identical  As it there appears, this ? It will be generated by computable function? What it then ? Or it will be written in advance down on both notepads (for the infinite time, aha)?... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>

54

Re: about data storage

Hello, Voblin, you wrote: V> it is clear that those tasks which at all had before no decision, become the ordinary. Interesting, what? And from what it to become the ordinary? If speech about algoritmicheskii-unsoluble tasks (calculation of nontrivial invariant properties of computable functions-> a halting problem / classification of algorithms / the code analysis / problems of the beaver-zadrota and self-applicability, etc.) That they and remain incapable of solution as  the model of calculations initially implies the infinite storage and new this box here does not bring anything. If under the tasks which do not have the decisions, the tasks which decision rests against various restrictions on storage they quite to themselves dare and now, in frames  "time-memory" are implied. The box allows to solve NSPACE tasks in a square faster, and NEXPSPACE - in an exponent. That, by the way, right now it is possible to receive appropriate performance gain of the solver, time we affected a subject of dirty imaginations. Or application for separate tasks, within the limits of quantum model, algorithms of Grovera and Sajmona, accordingly. More shortly, from the point of view of special sensation it is not necessary to wait for "not solved tasks".... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>

55

Re: about data storage

Hello, Stanislaw K, you wrote: SK> Time this that a trifle, in comparison with that is necessary  TWO IDENTICAL . What's the problem? To fill both  from one source.

56

Re: about data storage

Hello, Sinclair, you wrote: S> the Infinite computing power should for finite time fulfill an infinite loop And it, by the way, rather interesting model: Infinite Time Turing Machines... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>

57

Re: about data storage

Hello, Ops, you wrote: SK>> Time this that a trifle, in comparison with that is necessary  TWO IDENTICAL . Ops> In what a problem? To fill both  from one source. Same . How you  will transfer? Through the Internet? Intercept! By plane? Force down and copy! Only  on a place, it is desirable before usage and to destroy right after.

58

Re: about data storage

Hello, Voblin, you wrote: V> we Assume, development of technologies of data storage reached that the Chinese vendor for the reasonable price (for example, $100) started to sell boxes in which the unlimited number byte is located. V> that is as the address in not the number of the fixed digit capacity (now fashionably 32 or 64 bits), and a file there is transferred. Transferred byte - APPRX. Transferred kilobyte - suits. Transferred address mbyte - too without problems. Yes though gigabyte. Both we write, and it is readable in style "random access". Speed - not other-wordly, but approximately at level USB-shnyh of flash cards. V> that fact that dimensionality even  address space strongly exceeds an amount of quarks in the Universe, not should cause categorical "it it is impossible". If a kernel  is not the discrete process, and analog value expressed by a real number in the infinite tail of this number it is theoretically possible (in the presence of skill which a technics question) to store infinitely much . Well, then  data volume, than it is possible to read for all lifetime of a device (let 10 years) to consider there is no sense. V> actually a question: with you to the world of information technologies appearance of such box can cause what changes in ours? Local  the Internet?)) V> it is clear that those tasks which at all had before no decision, become the ordinary. Interesting, what? At such slow rates of an exchange, comparable with speed of the good Internet? And, speech only about the static data? ...

59

Re: about data storage

Hello, Stanislaw K, you wrote: V>>> By the way, here and the useful application of a flash card. No, not espionage for citizens, and protection given by enciphering on a method of a code notepad. If Alisy and the Bean have two identical bottomless flash cards hammered identical  they can organize such channel with which even it is theoretically impossible to crack. Any even divine . Still Shannon proved  a code notepad. Ops>> remains  this  for finite time. SK> time this that a trifle, in comparison with that is necessary  TWO IDENTICAL . "" it is not necessary, it was necessary to copy.

60

Re: about data storage

Hello, Sinclair, you wrote: S> At you and at physicists the treatment of the term "understanding" simply differs. S> For the physicist "understanding" means development of model which adequately describes the observable world - i.e." Here the formula which works ".... Almost. Yes, of course, there is an amateurish approach, which through"understanding". With quantum physics it does not roll, because a photon,  two holes at once is a delirium. If to jump on the following step (that where we learned to use the formula) the delirium ceases to be gone. But it yet the ladder end. Some dudes climb above. For example, it is possible to recall David Dojcha, which, by the way, not  any, and one of founding fathers of a subject"quantum computings". That there is at least such piece, as the thesis of Church-Tjuringa-Dojcha (in normal  a companion ). And so, this person does not understand, how the photon climbs through two holes, and considers that it is delirium. Without inventing anything it is better, guilty business swaggers  interpretation of quantum mechanics which does not know to whom as, but the photon dual personality seems to me is even worse, than. It would be possible to write off this business that dear sir the professor went mad, but that is amusing, in these  it is completely not lonely. For example, Lie Smolin in the list of five great problems of theoretical physics the second point designated here the such: the PROBLEM 2: the Solution of a problem of substantiations of quantum mechanics or by giving of sense of the theory in its existing type, or by the invention of the new theory which makes sense. There are some various ways as it can be made. 1. To provide intelligent language for the theory which resolves all puzzles like that that has just been mentioned, and includes world sharing on system and the observer as an essential singularity of the theory. 2. To find new interpretation of the theory - a new method of perusal of the equations, - which it is realistic, so measurement and observation will not play a role in the description of a fundamental reality. 3. To invent the new theory, such which would give deeper understanding of the nature, than it is done by the quantum mechanics. All three ways are researched now by a small number of clever people. Unfortunately, not many physicists work over the given problem. It is accepted by times to instructions that the problem either is solved, or is not important. Neither that nor another is not true. It, possibly, the most serious problem facing the modern science. Simply it is so difficult that progress is very small. I deeply admire physicists who work over it, both because of purity of their efforts, and because of their courage to ignore a mode and to attack the hardest and most fundamental of problems. (Fat selection - mine) V>> very much that is measured In the physicist by real numbers. S> for example? Value of wave function in a point. If with points to communicate  (well them) the integral on some fixed volume too suits. S> and what gravitation? You want to encode there something by means of mass? We again rest that the infinite amount of particles will weigh infinitely much, and restricted volume it leads to a collapse. It is not necessary masses  in volume and to try to find infinity for the account of aspiration of an index in this infinity. The correct (necessary) infinity can easy lie in a narrow interval. Roughly speaking, between zero and unit. If to make so no collapse happens. S> the Infinite computing power should for finite time fulfill an infinite loop Addition of two true "rials" it already a variant of an unpretentious infinite loop.

61

Re: about data storage

Hello, Voblin, you wrote: V> Almost. Yes, of course, there is an amateurish approach, which through "understanding". With quantum physics it does not roll, because a photon,  two holes at once is a delirium. It in that model where the photon is a ball. There yes, it is delirium. And in that model, in which it - a wave, it not delirium, and quite obvious piece. It is enough to throw a stone in a pond, of which hindrances stick out personally to watch diffraction and an interference of wave packets. V> if to jump on the following step (that where we learned to use the formula) the delirium ceases to be gone. V> but it yet the ladder end. Some dudes climb above. For example, it is possible to recall David Dojcha, which, by the way, not  any, and one of founding fathers of a subject "quantum computings". And so, this person does not understand, how the photon climbs through two holes, and considers that it is delirium. And in what place it it considers? I yet did not find anything interesting, except valid, in general, the statement that the classical physics by the machine of Turing you will not calculate. From what follows or that the Church-Turing thesis is incorrect, or the classical physics is not present. Any problems with two-slit-type experiment here just .0 V> without inventing anything it is better, guilty business swaggers  interpretation of quantum mechanics which does not know to whom as, but the photon dual personality seems to me is even worse, than. I am skeptical about Everettovsky interpretation. At first, it anything does not help you with a photon dual personality - the matter is that even if the hypothesis about  is true, in one of the plural worlds the photon does not get to a black strip. It means that it  interferes with itself(himself). Secondly, this interpretation does not give any useful statements in comparison with the Copenhagen interpretation. As soon as they disperse in the predictions, we receive a method to compare interpretations and we select that from them which is more true. And without it it is reduced again to psychological comfort of people it is not enough to them to receive the efficient formula. It would be possible to write off this business that dear sir the professor went mad, but that is amusing, in these  it is completely not lonely. For example, Lie Smolin in the list of five great problems of theoretical physics the second point designated here the such: V> the PROBLEM 2: the Solution of a problem of substantiations of quantum mechanics or by giving of sense of the theory in its existing type, or by the invention of the new theory which makes sense. V> There are some various ways as it can be made. V> 1. To provide intelligent language for the theory which resolves all puzzles like that that has just been mentioned, and includes world sharing on system and the observer as an essential singularity of the theory. V> 2. To find new interpretation of the theory - a new method of perusal of the equations, - which it is realistic, so measurement and observation will not play a role in the description of a fundamental reality. V> 3. To invent the new theory, such which would give deeper understanding of the nature, than it is done by the quantum mechanics. V> all three ways are researched now by a small number of clever people. Unfortunately, not many physicists work over the given problem. It is accepted by times to instructions that the problem either is solved, or is not important. Neither that nor another is not true. It, possibly, the most serious problem facing the modern science. Simply it is so difficult that progress is very small. I deeply admire physicists who work over it, both because of purity of their efforts, and because of their courage to ignore a mode and to attack the hardest and most fundamental of problems. V> (fat selection - mine) Smolin, of course, authority. But, unfortunately, he forgot to mention, why this problem is so important. Here, say, creation of quantum gravitation - is clear. The uniform theory of particles - it is clear. A question about fundamental constants - it is clear. A dark matter - too it is clear. From five problems three - just the case "at us is the formula, but it works not everywhere". I.e. incompleteness of understanding is proved. One question - about the formula which is not present. I.e. it is a lot of constants, that depends on their combination much, but we do not know, whether we in a lottery benefited them, whether there is still any formula which rigidly connects them with each other. And only one question - about that the formula at us is, and we want also the nobility, why it such. S>> for example? V> Value of wave function in a point. There is no such parameter. It is fiction. V> if with points to communicate  (well them) the integral on some fixed volume too suits. And integral too fiction. To learn though something about wave function it is possible only by measurement, and its accuracy is restricted by an uncertainty ratio. V> it is not necessary masses  in volume and to try to find infinity for the account of aspiration of an index in this infinity. Correct (necessary) infinity can easy lie in a narrow interval. Roughly speaking, between zero and unit. If to make so no collapse happens. Your course of thought is not clear. What exactly do you want to hide between zero and unit? Any value, which binary expansion gives you the data? Well so the physics does not allow to you anything to measure (I repeat on letters: Nikolay, Ilya, Hariton, Uljana, Jacob) with the infinite accuracy. The quantum mechanics forbids. V> addition of two true "rials" it already a variant of an unpretentious infinite loop. Certainly. Simply in the nature "the true rials" do not happen.

62

Re: about data storage

Hello, Voblin, you wrote: V> in an any way it turns out that the only thing that it is rather necessary to have is a personal archive, and all remaining need to be able to be found at need origin. The same favourite serials which were once downloaded, now at an output of a new season  online. Because by experience it is noted that on the second circle of anything from available serials it has not been looked stupidly never. Aha, . It was required to us about half a year back  one program with  on  and suddenly such hemorrhoids that began in a fairy tale to tell. At first we needed 95 Windows OSR1 which on  do not distribute. All right, found, but monitor driver SVGA under  was required. Somehow picked up a working combination. The program was launched. Now it is necessary  resources and . Earlier they lay on everyone BBS, and now all sites where it was died for hosting non-payment. Found at someone on compact discs, disassembled . Here it appeared that resources are shaken any fashionable in the beginning 90 , but the vendor of this  died together with source codes, the documentation and the editor. It was necessary to recover reverse engineering a format and to write the . And after all once all  lay on a computer at each programmer respecting.

63

Re: about data storage

Hello, Sinix, you wrote: S> Find than useful to hammer 300  - come video Raws. At me from one camera for one  gathers ~10Gb video, and cameras only at me 6 pieces and if with all participants to collect that will be pieces 100. That is 6Tb for once. In due course, algorithms of video will develop and a year or two from now it will be simple to set request and, say, to receive all fragments from different cameras where there is a certain person in the chronological order.

64

Re: about data storage

Hello, pestis, you wrote: S>> Find than useful to hammer 300  - come P> In due course, algorithms of video will develop and a year or two from now it will be simple to set request and, say, to receive all fragments from different cameras where there is a certain person in the chronological order. For a typical customer of one discharge of usefulness from 1608 o'clock Santa Barbara And to whom it is necessary - similar organized for a long time a thing almost at level . About underground-stations-stadiums I am silent.

65

Re: about data storage

Hello, Sinix, you wrote: S> the Thing for a typical customer of one discharge of usefulness from 1608 o'clock Santa Barbara Yes is fine, now at every third the channel on . S> And to whom it is necessary - for a long time similar organized almost at level . About underground-stations-stadiums I am silent. While it works only for stationary video observation.