Is there any calculation that current processors cannot calculate ?

[Lord Banshee]

I would love if i can simulate a "Real" ASIC chip in real-time... or even 1000x slower than real-time would be great. It isn't fun waiting > 1 hour for 60us of sim time.

 

[BladeVenom]

Protein folding

 

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: Gannon

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: gevorg
Poincare conjecture

How would this benefit people by solving it ?


I'm really looking for things that would be useful to the masses.

Searching really large datasets(tm) (better search). Language processing, consider the fact that we have enormous amounts of cpu power and still don't have a device that can universally translate, understand, decode and learn even one language automatically without any kind of training or user intervention without error, also consider metarecognition (i.e. picking out objects in an image), which requires enormously more time and resources then a human being spends on doing pattern recognition.

Also artificial intelligence would benefit extremely from more computing power. Right now A.I. is in the dark ages, I want my computer to think for me, imagine not having to visit websites, or have people write sites like anandtech, and have a group or a single AI do that kind of thing for you through mere sifting of information on the web and being humanly creative in that you can't distinguish something a person has written from something an AI has written.

Imagine never having to work again because AI computes faster and is smarter then all human beings on earth. Right now computers are better mathematicians in terms of computational speed then all mathematicians combined, now if they could learn to think and do as humans do at that speed, that would obsolete entire populations of experts quite quickly as human beings become more redundant and useless in the face of their own creations.

This is so misguided I dont even know where to begin.

Farms?
Maintenance?

Tools are tools.

 

[Elias824]

I think this is relevant, public key encryption was broken using 200 ps3s, thats alot of processing power.

http://www.dailytech.com/MD5+I...te+CA/article13842.htm

 

[yh125d]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Protein folding

You realize that that is a huge use of our processing power? Folding@home ring a bell?

 

[reallyscrued]

Originally posted by: yh125d

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Protein folding

You realize that that is a huge use of our processing power? Folding@home ring a bell?

What? Who's power?

And your explanation of Pi is laughable, you may want to refresh your Trigonometry skills.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

What is the direction and speed of every particle in the known galaxy at a certain moment in time.

Or, for a simple and relatively quick calculation:
What are all the possible mutations within human cells, what are their short-term and long-term effects, and which are beneficial to us?

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
What are all the possible mutations within human cells, what are their short-term and long-term effects, and which are beneficial to us?

Right now that's difficult/impossible to do, but not because of lack of processing power. No one knows how to write the program that could attempt to do it. If they did, then yes, it would probably be much more than our current systems would allow.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: yh125d

We already know the exact value of pi as has been stated. It's 22/7. Pretty simple really, the only tricky part is that there is no expressable rational number for pi in mathematics as we know it

I dunno what's worse, saying Pi = 22/7 or the fact that after you said that you said there is no expressable rational number for pi.

 

[KIAman]

LOL, let's assume the exact value of PI is 22/7. Can anyone figure out how many kilometers we would be off calculating 2 galaxies in concentric orbits around each other with an average size of 100,000 light years across and the orbit around 1,000,000 light years?

 

[DyslexicHobo]

I doubt we have enough processing power to do the arithmetic of calculating Graham's number.

The number of digits it contains cannot practically be expressed by any means other than tetration (or some other form of the up-arrow notation). It was known for a long time to be the largest number ever used in a serious mathematical proof. Apparently there are now larger numbers used in certain proofs. I have not read about any of those numbers and cannot find much information on them, though.

Have fun trying to wrap your mind around how large this number is.

Edit: Some info on a useful number larger than Graham's number...

For every n, there is an m so large that if T1,...,Tm is a finite sequence of trees with vertices labelled from a set of n labels, where each Ti has at most i vertices, then Ti = Tj for some i < j. The latter theorem ensures the existence of a rapidly growing function that Friedman called TREE, such that TREE(n) is the length of a longest sequence of n-labelled trees T1,...,Tm in which each Ti has at most i vertices, and no tree is embeddable into a later tree. The TREE sequence begins TREE(1) = 1, TREE(2) = 3, then suddenly TREE(3) explodes to a value so enormously large that many other "large" combinatorial constants, such as Friedman's n(4), are "completely unnoticeable" by comparison. A lower bound for n(4), and hence an extremely weak lower bound for TREE(3), is A(A(...A(1)...)), where the number of A's is A(187196), and A() is a version of Ackermann's function: A(x) = 2??...?x with x-1 ?s (Knuth up-arrows). Graham's number, for example, is "unnoticeable" even in comparison to this "unnoticeable" lower bound for TREE(3). The ordinal measuring the strength of Kruskal's theorem is the small Veblen ordinal (sometimes confused with the smaller Ackermann ordinal).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...iedman.27s_finite_form