| |
In article <3A779839.F8720263@surfree.com>,
Andrew Lipson <werdna@surfree.com> wrote:
> I'm pretty sure the Tinkertoy 'computer' was basically a look-up table
> that
> had all positions coded into it with the correct responses, making use
> of symmetries to cut down the size of lookup needed. I don't really
> consider
> that to be a computing device. As I recall, Dewdney wrote a column about
> it
> for Scientific American a few years ago.
Good enough for me-- after all, any combinational logic construct (gates,
but no registers/flip flops) can be represented as a ROM, and this is often
done in practice. I can't imagine saying that just because one didn't
represent it the other way, it's no longer computation... And the ROM
is generally faster. On the other hand, the ROM may also be of an
infeasible size.
On the other hand, it does lack a lot of the stuff von Neumann decided
we ought to have if we want to call something a general purpose
computer...
-JDF
--
J.D. Forinash ,-.
foxtrot@cc.gatech.edu ( <
The more you learn, the better your luck gets. `-'
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Building a computer from Lego's
|
| (...) I'm pretty sure the Tinkertoy 'computer' was basically a look-up table that had all positions coded into it with the correct responses, making use of symmetries to cut down the size of lookup needed. I don't really consider that to be a (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.general)
|
23 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
