Unsatisfactory Scientific Explanations?

[whois]

A sixty four bit full adder has 64 bits, not two.

the only difference between a full adder and a half adder is in the LSB, it doesn't accept a carry.
other that that, they are identical.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I am not confusing anything with anything. Have you ever programmed a computer in assembly language, written a device driver, parsed ACPI tables perhaps, or read PCI Configuration Space? Well I have, and I have no need to cut and paste from Wikipedia.

I fail to believe you - considering if you had ever actually programmed anything - you would know a computer runs on binary code.

I know - you fail to cut and paste anything to back up your claims - because we both know when it comes to the code the computer runs on it is binary and no source backs up your claims to cut and paste from.

Strawmen and distractions still fail to support you.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

the only difference between a full adder and a half adder is in the LSB, it doesn't accept a carry.
other that that, they are identical.

Ahhh - someone that understands. Thank you.

 

[lesliedellow]

I fail to believe you - considering if you had ever actually programmed anything - you would know a computer runs on binary code.

You can believe what you like.

Mov al, 0adh
Out 64h, al

Now I wonder what the effect of that might be?

 

[lesliedellow]

the only difference between a full adder and a half adder is in the LSB, it doesn't accept a carry.
other that that, they are identical.

A full adder is two half adders strung together.

The point, so far as Mr Universal-Expert-On-Everything is concerned, is that "add rax,rdx" shifts 64 bits at a time.

 

[whois]

A full adder is two half adders strung together.

???
a full adder accepts both bits to be added plus the carry/borrow from the previous stage and generates the sum plus the carry to the next stage.
a half adder only accepts the 2 bits to be added and generates the sum and carry.
a half adder is only used for the LSB

The point, so far as Mr Universal-Expert-On-Everything is concerned, is that "add rax,rdx" shifts 64 bits at a time.

this doesn't even make sense.
adders do not shift bits, multipliers do.
furthermore, logical shifts involve registers, not adders.
also, adders do not store results, they are immediately sent to the accumulator.

 

[whois]

You can believe what you like.

Mov al, 0adh
Out 64h, al

Now I wonder what the effect of that might be?

i don't know every processor out there, but there is no doubt that the above does not use memory mapped I/O

 

[lesliedellow]

???
a full adder accepts both bits to be added plus the carry/borrow from the previous stage and generates the sum plus the carry to the next stage.
a half adder only accepts the 2 bits to be added and generates the sum and carry.
a half adder is only used for the LSB

The first half adder sums the carry in with one of the operands, and the second half adder sums the output of the first half adder with the second operand.

this doesn't even make sense.
do not shift bits, multipliers do.
furthermore, logical shifts involve registers, not adders.
also, adders do not store results, they are immediately sent to the accumulator.

Shift was there being used in the colloquial sense of "move".

 

[lesliedellow]

i don't know every processor out there, but there is no doubt that the above does not use memory mapped I/O

The x86 processors can use both I/O and memory mapped space. Nowadays memory mapping tends to have preference for new features, because I/O space was getting a bit crowded.

 

[whois]

The first half adder sums the carry in with one of the operands, and the second half adder sums the output of the first half adder with the second operand.

adders are parallel, not serial.
both bits are applied to the adder
full adders have 3 inputs, the 2 bits to be added and the carry from the previous stage.
half adders only have 2 inputs, the 2 bits to be added.
i may be old, but i pretty well know my hardware, especially in regards to CPUs.
if you have 2 bytes to be added, then you will need an 8 bit adder.
the LSB will be a half adder, the other 7 will be full adders.
the carry out of the MSB will set the carry flag.
the only possible exception is in regards to rotates, but this only applies to the results which is stored in either one of the registers or the accumulator.

edit:
here is a wkipage on the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adder_(electronics)

 

[lesliedellow]

adders are parallel, not serial.
both bits are applied to the adder
full adders have 3 inputs, the 2 bits to be added and the carry from the previous stage.
half adders only have 2 inputs, the 2 bits to be added.
i may be old, but i pretty well know my hardware, especially in regards to CPUs.
if you have 2 bytes to be added, then you will need an 8 bit adder.
the LSB will be a half adder, the other 7 will be full adders.
the carry out of the MSB will set the carry flag.
the only possible exception is in regards to rotates, but this only applies to the results which is stored in either one of the registers or the accumulator.

edit:
here is a wkipage on the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adder_(electronics)

Put your thinking cap on, and ponder how a full adder might be implemented.

 

[[serious]]

The difference is computers are at this time limited to 64 bit data buses - information pathways - while the brain has billions of neural pathways for the transference of data. Which is why you can make leaps of logic and think and the computer can not. If you have the latest computer it has at the most 8 processors working in tandem - the brain billions. The computer is faster at certain tasks because those tasks require less data. Smiling uses more calculations to control muscles than a computer processes to calculate pie to the millionth digit. Because the computer is focused solely on that one calculation - while you are thinking about multiple things - processing billions of bits of data - while in the process of smiling. Even while focused on one specific task - your brain is continuing to process all external stimuli - taking in billions of bits of data and processing them in the blink of an eye. So which is really faster? How fast would your brain really work if it processed no other stimuli while it focused on one specific task? You may think you are focusing on the task at hand - but in the background it is continuing to process more data than you could possibly dream.

Now flood that computer with external stimuli of billions of bits of data unrelated to the task at hand - but still needing processed and let's all watch it slow to a crawl.

Gpus can have thousands of cores. Cloud computing is in the tens of thousands. Yeah, there's still a substantial gap there, but it's one of degree, which was my whole point to begin with.

 

[lesliedellow]

How fast would your brain really work if it processed no other stimuli while it focused on one specific task?

Since that is not an accurate description of what goes on inside a computer; not even if it has only one processor, and is running only one application, the question is irrelevant. From the CPU's point of view, almost everything except the CPU counts as a peripheral, and most of them can cause it to drop what it is currently doing, in order to attend to them. That is not to mention the conditions which can arise within the processor itself, causing it to leave off what it is doing in order to attend to something else.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

???
a full adder accepts both bits to be added plus the carry/borrow from the previous stage and generates the sum plus the carry to the next stage.
a half adder only accepts the 2 bits to be added and generates the sum and carry.
a half adder is only used for the LSB

this doesn't even make sense.
adders do not shift bits, multipliers do.
furthermore, logical shifts involve registers, not adders.
also, adders do not store results, they are immediately sent to the accumulator.

You can't tell them nothing. I'd post the science that supports you but they'd just ignore it.

 

[lesliedellow]

You can't tell them nothing. I'd post the science that supports you but they'd just ignore it.

You'd post the science which supports it, if only it were not for the fact that you haven't got a clue what an exclusive or gate is; at least not without googling it, and then most likely misunderstanding what you read.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Since that is not an accurate description of what goes on inside a computer; not even if it has only one processor, and is running only one application, the question is irrelevant. From the CPU's point of view, almost everything except the CPU counts as a peripheral, and most of them can cause it to drop what it is currently doing, in order to attend to them. That is not to mention the conditions which can arise within the processor itself, causing it to leave off what it is doing in order to attend to something else.

Which was exactly my point - the computer processes one thing at a time - while the human brain processes billions of things at one time. It need not put one data process on hold while it calculates part of another - put it on hold - process another - put it on hold - go back to the first and repeat. While you are adding two plus two your brain still processes all the external stimuli it receives. While I type this I still hear the TV in the background and can understand what is going on - even if I am not paying full attention to it. O need not stop typing or thinking about what I am typing to hear the TV and process that information. I need not put all other processes on hold while I process this.

 

[lesliedellow]

Which was exactly my point - the computer processes one thing at a time - while the human brain processes billions of things at one time. It need not put one data process on hold while it calculates part of another - put it on hold - process another - put it on hold - go back to the first and repeat. While you are adding two plus two your brain still processes all the external stimuli it receives. While I type this I still hear the TV in the background and can understand what is going on - even if I am not paying full attention to it. O need not stop typing or thinking about what I am typing to hear the TV and process that information. I need not put all other processes on hold while I process this.

The only way the brain can process more than one thing at a time is with multiple processors; just as their are multiple processors inside a computer, and that doesn't just mean the better known ones such as the GPU and a multicore CPU.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You'd post the science which supports it, if only it were not for the fact that you haven't got a clue what an exclusive or gate is; at least not without googling it, and then most likely misunderstanding what you read.

Your so full of yourself you dont even know when you are wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adder_(electronics)

You are a prime example of unsatisfactory scientific explanations.

But you still run from what started this. ALL COMPUTERS RUN ON 2 BIT BINARY CODE.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The only way the brain can process more than one thing at a time is with multiple processors; just as their are multiple processors inside a computer, and that doesn't just mean the better known ones such as the GPU and a multicore CPU.

It has billions of processors and makes new ones and data pathways as needed. The computer can do neither and never will be able to.

 

[whois]

Put your thinking cap on, and ponder how a full adder might be implemented.

as far as i know, it's irrelevant as to how these are implemented.
the question is "what is the difference between a half and full adder".
a half adder does not have a carry in, otherwise the 2 are identical.
adders are inherently parallel devices, not serial, both bytes are presented simultaneously.
the only possible exception to the operation is in regards to rotates, but since adders do not store results this doesn't apply to adders.
the results are ALWAYS stored in the accumulator or transferred to another register, and rotates are applied to these locations, not the adder.