I don't want to change the subject line because it will not get sorted
properly in the threads, but it should start with "CORRECTION: "
Also you are getting copies of this directly rather than via the
list since the List's mailbox is full and currently bouncing my
messages. The Good Ship Extropy sinks under its own weight I'm afraid.
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> I mistyped:
> > According to Gwen Jacobs at a recent NSF meeting on terrascale computing,
> > it would require 1 month of Petaflops computing power to simulate 1
> > second of brain time (now I don't believe for correct -- I think it is
> > much worse (i.e. computing requirements are greater) if you are doing
> > and atomic or quantum scale simulation, but thats another discussion)..
SORRY mea culpa! It should say 1 month @ 10^15 ops to simulate 10^-9 sec
of real brain time (e.g. 1 ns). Lord leave out two little letters and
you land on Pluto instead of on Mars... What is the name of the company
that hires people like me... Lockheed????
> 1000 exaflops for a human brain?! 1e21 ops/sec?
No, 10^30 ops/sec.
> Where does she get that figure from?
Lord only knows, I'm going to do some more research on it and do
some calcs based on current MD simulations where the information
is published. [My previous crack at this suggested you couldn't
simulate even a single human brain on a MBrain so there are some
*really* wide ranges in these numbers...]
> Or is it a calculation for simulating the diffusion of
> individual neurotransmitters on a particle-based level?
I don't think so. It "might" be for a very fine grained NMR real
time monitoring of some type (since that is about the stage NIH
is thinking at currently).
> Hm? According to _Nanosystems_, a rod logic runs at 1e21 ops/sec - one
> month of petaflops, or just about.
Nope, as corrected you don't fit 10^30 into 10^21...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:41 MDT