[johnphantom]

Well, as I stated in my introduction on this board, I have discovered what I think is a new model for computation, and I think it would apply well to quantum computing. The document is 11 pages long, so I put it on another site with this link:

How To Compute Without Numeric Variables In A Non-Von Neumann Architecture

I'm probably gonna be called a "script kiddie" and "it's just a game!" and ridiculed for what I think is very difficult programming.

This document is pre-mature and I do not have a good introduction to it. Like I say at the bottom of the document, I would like to patent this and put it in the public domain. Any comments, good or bad, are welcome.

I desperately need help with this.

[ivan.moony]

hi johnphantom

so, it would be entire programming language, domain specific language (DSL), or something else?

[johnphantom]

hi johnphantom

so, it would be entire programming language, domain specific language (DSL), or something else?

It's not really a programming language - I think it's a new way to "wire" quantum computers. Either way, what I do here does not use numbers as variables - it uses them as symbols with non-numeric value, which could be ignored since all names I have given various named "alias" are just pointers to other pieces of the "code" - which it really is not code but a way to wire computers.

Heh confusing?

[Don Patrick]

Like, 0 means ON, 1 means OFF, 2 means AND, 3 means OR? Something like that? Would the numbers still be stored as binary data, or does it require a whole different kind of computer -to yet be built- whose data storage units can contain more values than electromagnetic positive and negative? If so, would it matter much how you code things if the computer is already 100x more efficient by its own nature?

I'm not one for math, really. I'm mostly curious about another thing: Why would you want to patent this if you also want to give it away for free? A patent prohibits others from applying your designs, so that seems to conflict.

[johnphantom]

No - no numbers at all, just connections in memory. The numbers you see in the script are just names for pointers and not used numerically. There is no binary here.

This paragraph written by Andrew Steane I think illustrates that "evolution" of quantum states is really and infinite unmeasurable loop:

“The new version of the Church-Turing thesis (now called the ‘Church-Turing Principle’) does not refer to Turing machines. This is important because there are fundamental differences between the very nature of the Turing machine and the principles of quantum mechanics. One is described in terms of operations on classical bits, the other in terms of evolution of quantum states. Hence there is the possibility that the universal Turing machine, and hence all classical computers, might not be able to simulate some of the behavior to be found in Nature. Conversely, it may be physically possible (i.e. not ruled out by the laws of Nature) to realize a new type of computation essentially different from that of classical computer science. This is the central aim of quantum computing.”

There is no math here.

Patents are like copyrights, except that it is the concept and not the verbatim information being taken ownership of. Either way, ownership allows one to charge for the use of the Intellectual Property. I want to patent it and put it in the public domain so no one company or person could own the rights and force others to pay for the use of the concept.

[Don Patrick]

I see, it's a hardware solution then. "public domain" is the status in which no legal claim can be made by anyone. If you have a patent on it, it is automatically not in the public domain, but I get what you mean. More to the point though: Would you want to pay over $10000 for a 2-year worldwide patent?

[johnphantom]

No, I am indigent. I just don't want someone profiting from my work, and everyone gets a shot at it.

[johnphantom]

I apologize for being rough.

This is a new direction to go in for analog computing. It is not digital. We are not digital. I see, and I may be wrong, it as a avenue to synthetic consciousness. It is essentially different than any other programming I have done, in my 42 years of programming.

What I have described in the paper is not what I would see as optimal. I don't know where it could go with some sort of ability to "re-program" itself, and I say that with difficulty because it is not programming.

Everything I have attempted to do in the confines of Counter-Strike 1.6 I have been successful at. I truly wonder what could be done beyond the confines of a simple game, with only user input and outputs.

[Don Patrick]

No apology necessary. I'm afraid the concept of quantum computers is a little over my head. As an alternative to expensive patenting, I wonder if you might be able to have your concept published in cooperation with a professor once it is more refined. As far as I understood, everyone is free to use research papers published by academic scientists.

[johnphantom]

Yes that would be a good option I think, Don. The paper definitely needs refining, and as I am not a college graduate (I started seriously professionally programming and working with networks when I was still in high school) I would need help. I think the ideas are covered well, but explaining the whole thing requires some excellent writing, and that is not my forte'.

[Ultron]

The mention of 'connections in memory' reminded me of a theory of mine. I have mentioned this in one of my topics, but to re-phrase, I have stated that our minds function like computers - we think be running raw data through a series of biological logic gates of some kind.
Maybe our ever-growing intelligence works by expanding and re-organizing these gates (adding new gates / cells, moving them relative to each other etc.) to help house and process the data we continuously collect?

I believe this might actually be plausible, but we need hardware-dynamic computers which can expand physically to help improve their more abstract part (software).

Note though - even though our mind is the most efficient processing machine we could imagine, incorporating the concepts we are discussing now as a sophisticated complex algorithm could end as an efficiently failure, even if the concept is proven true. From a philosophical point of view on the topic, complexity can be the enemy of efficiency - computers today incorporate the use of possibly the simplest of all languages - binary, which means a variable can either be true or false.

Every advanced system (biological and artificial alike) begins with a simple base (e.g. binary) and then further expands and complicates it (processors - collections of billions of simple units: transistors / gates).
So I guess my point is that your concept seems a bit complicated and the theoretical results are thus greatly diverse.

[Femida]

There is no logic there Maybe they are jealous that you have found something you enjoy doing, youre good at, and that they cant do?

Its definitely nothing to be ashamed about, and its not selfish. Its important to have hobbies.

[ranch vermin]

I read this on AI-forum.org.     

So what I know, the DWAVE annealer,  processes many states at the same time.   That I fully understand the annealing idea, except I dont know how the hell superposition works, but I could possibly wire up an ultrasound analogue annealer which does the same thing except the states all serially really quickly.  (It benefits from a huge amount of couplers, granted by its sonic connections.)

So the idea is there,  only issue I have with DWAVE is the lack of coupling for a decent scoring of a decent state.    Unless theres some way (using something like what you do with your idea) of gaining virtual couplers using the superposition.

So this thing youve made, actually stores a program inside the superposition, it has a big setup phase and then it blasts it all in a single cycle or something, I read it, but I didnt understand it.   I bet your idea works and its really good -  I dont disbelieve alot in engineering these days.


If you need help with patenting,  If I were you,  I wouldnt even have posted this, and got working on it yourself,  Ive got the same problem with my invention, I spill the beans too much cause ive got a loud mouth problem. (Im working on some algorythmic based artificial memory + sensors)  If you want a mansion in paradise then maybe you should keep a lid on it, dont just go on forums telling anyone,  let them work it out themselves.

[johnphantom]

Please note that I have created a working model for a stateless computer. It is pure connectionism, which I look at as a geometry of information. Using quantum nonlocality it could operate instantaneously as input happens:

http://tinyurl.com/statelesscomputer

or directly:

https://app.box.com/s/4plplfbrhwr9qflosp8tir00r0pf1467

Note that this site does not support advertising and there is nothing that you have to download to read what I wrote.

You can contact me at johnphantom@hotmail.com

[Art]

Johnphantom,

I would agree with Don Patrick's assessment of Not securing a Patent. A Copyright might be a better bet and would certainly cost less. ($30.00 USD - Registration Fee). The Copyright Act provides a minimum term of 95 years from the date of publication, and if a person is named as the author in the application, the term extends for the life of the author (or last surviving author) plus 70 years.

It also provides protection for statutory damages of up to $30,000 for non-willful infringement and up to $150,000 for willful infringement.

Otherwise, if you wish to place your work in Public Domain, then all bets are off. Open and available for everyone. There is the usual stipulation that no one can make money from the use of your creation, etc.

There is a good page if you're interested: http://corporate.findlaw.com/intellectual-property/how-and-why-to-register-copyrights-for-computer-programs.html

Good luck either way!