X-Message-Number: 26915
From: 
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 10:00:45 EDT
Subject: Re: CryoNet #26901 To Donaldson once more.

T. Donaldson said:

NO, I  specifically do NOT accept that any sequential processor is 
equivalent to  a system of parallel processors. This idea is in one
sense a forgivable  fallacy, since most theory about computing ignores
the CRUCIAL issue of  TIMING. Those who actually make large parallel
machines know very well that  their parallel processors aren't at all
equivalent to any sequential  processor, no matter how fast.


So you retract to your first ideological position, even after you said you  
have no scientific or technical paper to substantiate it. So we disagree on a  
fundamental point. For me, if a problem can be resolved on a parallel machine 
it  can be on a sequential one, may be slowly, may be as fast or faster, 

depending  on the technology used in each system. Until you give me the 
reference 

for a  scientific paper able to demonstrate the contrairy, I'll remain on that
possition. I think it is the general consensus for nearly all people working 
in  the information technology domain. You are the only person with that idea 
of  fundamental difference between sequential and parallel processing I know  
about.
 
YB.
 


 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26915