On 1/9/2011 8:57 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Think we may be talking about different things here... The idea I am
>> talking about is that you programmaticaly do the equivalent of:
>
> Well, if you're talking about logical reversability, sure. But that's
> not all that much more interesting than memoization.
>
>> 1 + 2 + 4 * 5 = result
>> roll back to 1 + 2
>> 3 * 10 + 5 = result
>
> Pulling out the result is irreversible.
>
>> The point of the idea being that if you do not have to "turn on" a
>> switch, only shut some off, the cost is lower.
>
> That's not how it works. You have to drive the circuit backwards. You
> don't just turn off parts of it, as that's irreversible too. Unless
> you're talking about "logical reversibility", which isn't what I'm
> talking about.
>
Yeah, what I was talking about was a programmatic attempt at applying 
logical reversibility. The stuff you are talking about is completely 
different.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message