You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Lumifer comments on Open thread, Jul. 11 - Jul. 17, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: MrMind 11 July 2016 07:09AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (131)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: HungryHobo 12 July 2016 01:50:44PM *  2 points [-]

If true this has some spectacular implications for computing (long term).

http://phys.org/news/2016-07-refutes-famous-physical.html

"Now, an experiment has settled this controversy. It clearly shows that there is no such minimum energy limit and that a logically irreversible gate can be operated with an arbitrarily small energy expenditure. Simply put, it is not true that logical reversibility implies physical irreversibility, as Landauer wrote."

Some of the limits of computation, how much you could theoretically do with a certain amount of energy are based on what appear to have been incorrect beliefs about information processing and entropy.

It will push the research towards "zero-power" computing: the search for new information processing devices that consume less energy. This is of strategic importance for the future of the entire ICT sector that has to deal with the problem of excess heat production during computation.

It will call for a deep revision of the "reversible computing" field. In fact, one of the main motivations for its own existence (the presence of a lower energy bound) disappears.

Comment author: Lumifer 12 July 2016 02:26:43PM 1 point [-]

As far as I can see, the experiment has shown that what was considered to be the lower bound is actually not.

However I don't understand how the claim of "no lower bound at all" necessarily follows. For all we know there is just a different, lower (lower bound).

Comment author: HungryHobo 12 July 2016 02:46:37PM *  0 points [-]

I found it odd as well but I think it's because it implies that the theoretical reason for that lower bound may be invalid.

There's likely going to turn out to be a different theoretical lower bound for some other reason but right now we don't have that theoretical reason.