91–100 of 205 posts
Even worse, a patent for a "processor design, which allows representation of real numbers accurate to the last digit" is obviously nonsense. Pi (=3.141...) is a real number where there is no "last digit".
I assume it means accurate to the last digit of the representation, not the number being represented. obviously the latter would be absurd to suggest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Patents don't necessarily mean nobody else can use it. For example, he could license the technology which means people have to pay to use it.
And what about programmers that care about free as freedom?
[0]: The original "Free as in speech" seems to be a much better way to express your sentiment.
Mathematica has the cool ability to do symbolic tracking of numerical precision, for the ability to tell you when, for example, your differential equation solver is giving you meaningless results.
Is there a reason why we can't have that as a compiler warning?
Addition has a maximum accuracy of 1 LSB. Makes sense: the last bit could have been "rounded off" and 1.5+1.5 == 2 (but really 3 should have been returned).
Subtraction has unlimited error bounds (!!!). Well, I guess there's 53-bits of a double-precision float. So subtraction can theoretically create 53-bits of error.
In practice, you need to keep track of the error bounds during the runtime of the program. Its not something that can be computed at compile time. After all, addition of a positive and negative number IS subtraction. (so some subtractions are additions: with accuracy of 1LSB. While some additions are subtractions: with unlimited error bounds)
Note that it’s a claim on the processing unit implementation (e.g. the FPU), not the method.
Nonetheless, I’d be very surprised if this stands the test of interval arithmetic prior art.
Considering the over-the-top language ("a game changer for the computing industry") and questionable or imprecise comments like, "[it] allows representation of real numbers accurate to the last digit" (um, who reads that without thinking of irrational numbers?) it sounds too much like a sales pitch and not like serious research. I could be wrong, but based on the similarities to interval arithmetic everyone has alrea…
Briefly read, it looks like an idea and not an 'apparatus'. Yes, carrying error bound information along with the number is interesting. How is that implemented in real time? How is accumulated error calculated (how do we know the floating values we are calculating with are not perfectly precise e.g. 3.0000... and not 3.000...1)?
It's patent law lingo. The patent covers both the idea (the "system") and subsequent implementations (the "apparatus") that are direct implementations of the idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could have used trade secrets. Konrad Zuse tells the story that back then, optical equipment manufacturers used to contract him for computations. Instead of rooms full of mechanical calculators operated by humans (the original "computers") they would supply his company with data and algorithms and he would reply back with results. Apparently, there were design reasons why for electronic calculations a different…
Trade secrets are worse because then the design never gets disclosed, and has to be rediscovered. Time limited patents are a good and explicit trade off between the personal benefit of the inventor and the benefit of society. > Michael Hanack (the materials chemist) used a different strategy: he would not patent anything so his inventions could be used my any market participant, and he would consult for all of them.…
In the sciences you'll notice that simultaneous discoveries are nothing unusual, once the groundwork is laid the idea hangs in the air, you do nothing but reach out and catch it. The Zuse example is just another instance.
In the case of mathematics and computing, the invention can be copied easily by development costs are minimal as well. These is no compelling reason why someone should reap disproportionate rewards from a government-supported artificial monopoly. Progress suffers and the economy as well.
Mathematica has the cool ability to do symbolic tracking of numerical precision, for the ability to tell you when, for example, your differential equation solver is giving you meaningless results.
Is there a reason why we can't have that as a compiler warning?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand the downside, but how else would he ever get paid for this?
They could have used trade secrets. Konrad Zuse tells the story that back then, optical equipment manufacturers used to contract him for computations. Instead of rooms full of mechanical calculators operated by humans (the original "computers") they would supply his company with data and algorithms and he would reply back with results. Apparently, there were design reasons why for electronic calculations a different…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Under a different system that doesn't incentivize holding back global progress for small amounts of individual enrichment. There's a reason Linux and GNU utilities are so massively widely used, and overall they've probably provided billions in economic value. They do that freely, for any human to use, and in fact that's part of their main value proposition. Both were born out of the legal nightmare that was UNIX at t…
> Under a different system that doesn't incentivize holding back global progress for small amounts of individual enrichment. Patents don't hold back global progress any more than capitalism keeps people in poverty. If we went back a few hundred years and impose alternatives, would we be better off today? I doubt it. The whole point of the patent system is to foster innovation, and free exchange of ideas. Without the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's an inventor. Inventors usually work towards patents. Also, it's not so "no one else can use it". It's so that he can license out his work to a company like Intel. The patent is to protect him from a company like Intel going "sweet, thanks for the fix." And then profiting off his work. Or do you expect this guy to work for free?
I don't expect him to work for free, but I do want Intel (and AMD, ARM, NVIDIA, TI, and anyone else who makes a floating point module) to go "sweet, thanks for the fix" as quickly and, almost more importantly, as collectively as possible. I want this guy to be compensated, but I'd prefer this guy be compensated in a manner that doesn't prevent third parties from fixing their hardware. In general, I think bounties are…
Obviously 1) is a greater public good than 2), but in reality these are not the only options.
Here's some other realistic situations: 3) With no incentives to make things public, this guy either stops working on this much earlier, doesn't tell anyone, or throws it in the garbage. 4) This guy goes and talks to Intel about his design. They quietly pay him some money or hire him and implement it in secret. Two years from now they launch a processor with this feature and for the indefinite future, until their competitors spend costly time reverse engineering the secret hardware, only Intel processors have this circuit. 5) Same as 4) except Intel says, "Haha, thanks for being a sucker" and doesn't pay anyone.
This is the patent system at its best: incentivizing some guy to work on this invention, then publish his work and describe it in detail. For the next 20 years, he can license it to anyone he wants and profit from his work. After that point everyone can implement it as a public good.