Re: motion 15
> From: "Nate Hayes" <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?J=FCrgen_Wolff_von_Gudenberg?= <wolff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "stds-1788" <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "Dan Zuras Intervals" <intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: motion 15
> Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 13:34:44 -0500
>
> Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:
> > Ah, the voting will be interesting!
We do seem to live in interesting times. :-)
> > People, make sure you participate, and vote on this when the time
> > comes.
I couldn't agree more.
>
> P1788,
>
> Before voting begins, a few summary points:
While I am loathe to start a flame war on the subject,
let me refute these points.
>
> -- As was shown, the single sticky bit in Motion 15 is not enough to
> reliably propagate exceptional information through all computations... at
> least one additional sticky bit of history would be required.
On the contrary, the sticky bit in motion 15 IS sufficient
to remember the history of the computation WRT this
decoration. One need only look at the formula to see that.
>
> -- Tetrits with bool_set semantics can also easily separate "current
> operation" and "history," if this is required, by using a total of 4-bits
> (two for "current operation" and two for "history").
Motion 15 can accomplish this with two bits for the current
operation & one bit for sticky. A total of 3 only.
>
> -- The proposed octigit definitions no longer give us a conceptual model
> to reliably distinguish between NaI and Empty.
Well, as we have yet to define NaI, I cannot authoritatively
refute this. But I suspect it can be done if it turns out
to be required.
>
> -- Tetrits don't require hardware interlocks, either.
Nor can I comment on this.
>
> Power to the people.
>
> Nate
Save the whales. :-)
Dan