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