12-26-2013, 07:09 PM
(12-26-2013, 04:01 PM)xdot Wrote: http://cactirevolution.wordpress.com/201...ds-part-1/
http://cactirevolution.wordpress.com/201...ds-part-2/
Relevant.
I'm pretty sure that these things don't say anything. Like I understand all the concepts that these cover, but honestly, it seems that these are all excerpts from random, unrelated things. Like I have read every single one multiple times, and I still don't understand the smallest bit of it...
"1. The units used to construct an adder should not also be used to construct
the elements within that adder.
2. An adders type should be independent of the register it uses to obtain
memory." Am I having a stroke?
"The RDF brought instant-repeaters, which harden speed of different and complex circuits." Am I having a stroke?
"There has been a recent increase in the prevalence of I/O heavy instructions which are coupled with compute heavy operations. As the industry trends towards connected and multicore programs, the importance of managing the latency and unpredictability of I/O operations becomes ever more significant." AM I HAVING A STROKE?
"One must understand our adder configuration to grasp the genesis of our results.
We instrumented a real-time deployment on the Adder Units to measure the contradiction of instant logic. We removed 2 ticks of propagation delay from our machines. We added 3 ticks of input access to discover the instruction rate of the CPU performance." Please god help me I think I'm having a stroke...
Like actually, my mind cannot parse a single sentence in this entire thing. What is this thing trying to say?
I think a big reason that I am having so much trouble understanding this is that whoever wrote this decided to use as many big, technical words as possible, deciding that a guess at the definition of a word would make a fair substitute for the actual definition.
Like actually: "One must understand our adder configuration to grasp the genesis of our results."
genesis, as in the first book of the bible, it means the origin of something. "The origin of our results"? That makes no sense. Like zero. Did you mean "How we got our results?" "How we interpreted our results?" I have no idea, because the wrong word was used, so literally any possible definition could have been the one in the author's head.
Also: "We motivate the need for JK flip-flop gates. Continuing with this rationale, to achieve this ambition, we describe a circuit for branching, confirming that cache coherence and flags can collude to fulfill this mission."
So many things wrong with this thing, some parts are decipherable, some are not.
First: "motivating the need" makes 0 sense. Like actually. I understand that it's supposed to say "We suggest that people use JK flip-flop gates", but that doesn't change the fact that the phrase is not proper English (ha ha).
Second: "Continuing with this rationale" only make sense if there is an actual rationale to continue with that is directly before this phrase. As it is, I believe that it refers to the quite confusing jumble of words in the previous paragraph, which amounted to (as far as I could tell after several readings) something about managing latency. (Fun fact: you cannot "mandate the necessity" like wtf would that even mean? Making someone need something? That's very redundant..).
Third: "confirming that cache coherence and flags can collude to fufill [sic] this mission". Wat. Yes, I guess collusion does in part mean agreement between parties, but it is not in anyway a synonym for working together, unless this working together is under some illegal or nefarious purpose. How would a concept be able to work nefariously with another concept to fulfill a mission? "Fulfilling a mission" doesn't even make sense.
Like there are so many things wrong with how this thing was written that it is pretty damn unreadable. I wish I could say those were the worst bits, but pretty much the entire thing was similarly impossible to parse, so I just took two random parts.
I'm not trying to be mean, but this was incredibly frustrating to read, and this frustration could have been prevented if the posts weren't flooded with meaningless stuff. I think this might have been interesting, but I literally cannot read it, despite my English and redstone fluency.