## Wire Computing? A Theory

Expand Messages
• By now I m sure everyone here is familiar with the good old analog inverter that is often used in BEAM sensor connections. All it is is a wire intersection.
Message 1 of 60 , Jul 11, 2013
By now I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the good old "analog inverter" that is often used in BEAM sensor connections. All it is is a wire intersection. But I've been doing some paper experiments with this extremely simple circuit, and I think it could be used in a fashion similar to the way transistors are used in binary computers. Since an analog inverter is, digitally, a tetrary inverter, it's truth table looks like this:
I | O
0| 1
1|0
-1|-1
X|X
Where 11=-1, 01=0, 10=1, and 00=X. The main problem, though, fundamentally, is that wires can't turn off a current flow. Which is why 0 has to be all 1s, because eventually the signals are going to be OR'd together. Another fundamental issue is that it would be impossible to multiplex signals with wires only, unless the inputs were unary. Though using high value resistors, multiplexing would be much easier. I've also noted that in some early computers, ROM units were constructed entirely from wires. And I think a RAM unit and registers could also be created using analog inverters. I suppose for the system to work, though, some dead ends would have to be included to prevent the data from saturating, or certain bits would need to be redirected to control lines.  And since there would be no way to control the logic flow using a clock, it would have to be a constant feedback system. Resistors will likely be needed in practice to bias the current flow in the logic systems.
So anyway, who thinks this is a plausible concept, emulating a computing system with only patterns of wires and resistors?  Enjoy, Connor.

• Yeah, the usability bit is a primary focus of mine. Just for fun, really, I ve taken an approach at a very traditional style, basically using a set of counters
Message 60 of 60 , Aug 15, 2013
Yeah, the usability bit is a primary focus of mine. Just for fun, really, I've taken an approach at a very traditional style, basically using a set of counters in place of an actual processing unit. At it's simplest, it lacks the hardware to perform Boolean logic operations outside of 1's and 2s complement, but these can still be used to simulate logic functions in a few cycles. It can also simulate bit shifting easily enough by multiplying or dividing by 2. It also places quotients and remainders into different registers for easy handling of remainders. Not to mention floating point math isn't difficult, either. It could even perform <, =, > comparisons between values. As a matter of fact, I can't really say that any electronic computer has ever been built in this fashion. I'm pretty much basing the design entirely on DigiComp2, a mechanical 4-bit binary computer distributed as an educational toy from 1968-1976.
Yes, the 1-bit processor array concept is in fact cellular automata, which is why I refer to each unit as a "cell". I don't entirely understand bandwidth, yet. But the idea doesn't really focus on that. It regards robustness of the system, as well as massive parallel processing without most of the usability problems. I would also think it much more flexible, because a key construct is that each cell can alter its connectivity with its neighbors. It would take several orders of magnitude more component failures to trash the system than your traditional hardware, it could also be incredibly fault tolerant, and I'm thinking on the lines that the entire system would be programmed as a whole, so that determining how each cell should connect can be left up to the OS shell. Also, even if bandwidth restricts how quickly information is processed, another perk of the idea is that a very large amount of data could be processed at once.
On a side note, I once came up with an idea for a machine that was mostly electronic, but stored data temporarily as photon states(like, particle for 0 and wave for 1), and would be able to take advantage of the fact that photons, being 4-dimensional objects, can move in more directions than we can perceive, and thus allow the machine to literally do everything at once. What I mean is that each new cycle would take place in the same time frame as the last cycle, so that it could register an infinite amount of data in about a billionth of a second or so. It would only ever have to go forward in time if it needed to write a result back to main memory or update I/O, because the way it works, the events that occurred in previous steps literally would have never happened, and so the electronic memory wouldn't be able to remember such a result, and the outside world could only observe the final state of the program, if there was one. Fundamentally it is a photon based delay line with a negative delay. As in, instead of the delay propagating forward in time, it "rewinds" time slightly. So the potential would be literally instant computation, a stack of infinite size could be fed into the computer and processed in less than a billionth of a second, and an entire program run could be accomplished in the same amount of time. Branches and subroutines would be included. Only writing data back to memory or porting to the I/Os would really take any time at all. Only the program's final result could be observed from outside, as each step in between would never have happened in our timeline. Also, the program counter would have to be photon based, somehow, since if it was electronic, it wouldn't be able to remember what program line to go to next after time was rewritten again. The only thing I can see being interpreted as dangerous with this is that it does, indeed, rewrite time. But it only rewrites about a billionth of a second each time, and it doesn't effect outside events whatsoever. It has absolutely no way to affect reality.

--- In beam@yahoogroups.com, Martin McKee wrote:
>
> For myself, life is catching up with me. Come Monday, I'll be starting a
> new degree ( one not even tangentially related to my first ), so I've been
> rushing around trying to get all that in order -- no time for seriously
> thinking about robotics at all.
>
> I've only got a minute or two now, but, some few comments. The massively
> parallel 1-bit processors sounds a bit like a cellular atomaton type
> system. I remember having see once ( but can I find it now? of course not!
> ) a computer system that was being developed in that vein, compiler and
> all. There is certainly potential for quite a bit of performance, but for
> maximum performance, the bottleneck is often memory bandwidth, and not,
> strictly, computational. A large number of processors with a handful of
> neighbors and a 1-bit interconnect is not going to help in that line.
>
> To be honest, much of the architecture design lately has been targeted at
> increasing performance ( adding parallel instruction sets, vectorizability,
> hyperthreads, etc. ) but because of memory access issues and programming
> concurrency issues, simple small instructions and a minimal set of fully
> atomic instructions has seemed to have the best balance of usability and
> performance. No one has really been able to demonstrate an architecture
> that is both highly performant and efficient in the face of concurrency (
> and many parallel computational units ) while remaining easy to program. I
> think what can be said about "traditional" architectures, is that they are
> easy to understand and they work "well enough."
>
> Back to work...
>
> Martin Jay McKee
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.