Coin flips are wholly independent operations though, aren’t they? The “or” is not provided by the machine.
To me, Time is what separates theoretical logic, which is supposed to be instantaneous from actual logic operations which always happen across time.
Such is the genius and basis behind the work from various folks in the 1930s that led up to digital computing.
Claude Shannon is one but there were several, all approaching a similar notion from different angles: that quantization over time allows logic to be mechanized.
No, I think it applies here as well. Think of queuing. The coins are fed in serially. Constraints upon the coin movement are:
The size and friction of the “glides” it goes down and bounces through,
The fraud detection mechanism and rejection,
until finally it reaches a point where it can be counted serially.
All of that operates across time.
How do I know this? Gravity.
Imagine your coin counting machine in zero-G or several Gs.
It probably would not function properly.
Could it handles coins traveling too quickly or not at all?
Gravity operates over time.
It’s amazing to consider just how many things MUST go “right” for a logic function to execute properly.
Astounding amount of constraints. An error in any one of them renders errors in the operations.
Oh, long BEFORE the logic operation.
The single logic operation is a final step in a huge amount of constraints that are required for that SINGLE logic operation to execute and generate expected result.
Functioning logic operations are perhaps the PINNACLE of human engineering products.
How do you take non-discrete nature and “toothpaste tube” it into perfect little discrete bits?
Ultimate in turning chaos into human constructed order.
From that, we can build things that operate in ways that speed up time.
Constraint down to bits, make them fast and have all of this mini armies going through pipes and switches, and you and I are able to think a thought, type it, and transfer it within milliseconds to each other.
A continual source of amazement to me is that those bits – EVERY last one of them, is PHYSICAL.
(we can call it “energy” but it’s physical in that it can be measured and constrained to do our bidding with a lot of coaxing and consists of wonky quantas of elections physically going through materials WE manufacture, taking advantage of quirks of nature that occur at such small scales).
How many billiard balls with wonky physics are moving about under my fingers in this laptop?
I couldn’t begin to imagine. It’s probably making more errors than correct operations, causing continual heat from all those thrown out bits (that are physical in nature – tangible and real) – but it’s working.
wait – not so much errors but resisters that make it hot, although errors in logic operations also do that as the error correction circuits get overworked… but yeah I forgot about resisters for a sec
NOR gate – check out that resistance! Hot stuff. Now shrink it and print it really tiny for electrons. Super hot stuff. Anything can be built with NOR (parallel) or NAND (serial) — I wonder how NAND is in resistance?
Ooh – same amount of resistance it seems, although it looks like NAND is simpler with the fewer wires. NAND must be lower energy requirements, lower heat output, cheaper manufacturing cost, I think.
It LOOKS like NOR has a bit of memory built into it too as the switch position itself at the bottom has a loop. I bet that loop is memory storage. Gonna find out.
(I could never read circuits beyond “squiggle is resistor, find where ground is, that’s a switch thing)..
You know more than me. I just muddle through Looks like both NAND and NOR can be used for memory: “SR” – Set-Reset. I sort of “knew” this — that is it looks familiar — but I had no active recall of it.
Oh, but you can build every logical operation using only NAND or only NOR if you wanted.
Apollo computer was constructed solely of 3 input NORs.
AND yes! My intuition on NAND was right: NAND is faster to operate and cheaper to manufacture and takes up less room.
I seem to recall that NAND is more volitile “weaker” over time but can’t remember why.