Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!caen!ox.com!math.fu-berlin.de!unido!ecrc!ecrc!traff
From: traff@ecrc.de (Jesper Larsson Traff)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Question on halting problem
Keywords: for 10 bonus points...
Message-ID: <1991May10.114526.5374@ecrc.de>
Date: 10 May 91 11:45:26 GMT
References: <1991Apr26.135918.8607@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <3132@ylum.Morgan.COM> <jono.673068358@dec06> <1991May1.072918.844@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu>
Sender: news@ecrc.de
Reply-To: traff@ecrc.de (Jesper Larsson Traff)
Organization: ecrc
Lines: 17

In article <1991May1.072918.844@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu>,
kym@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (R. Kym Horsell) writes:
|>In article <jono.673068358@dec06> jono@dec06.cs.monash.edu.au
(Jonathan Oliver) writes:
|>
|>(a) why use electrons? Maybe there is some class of thingy around here
|>	somewhere of which there _are_ an unbounded number. Since it
|>	_has_ been shown the lower bound on energy required for
|>	computation is zero (i.e. it can continue after any ``heat
|>	death'') we don't even require that thingy to have energy

That's an interesting remark. Can you give a pointer as to where this
lower bound is given. Sorry for my ignorance.
                                
Jesper Larsson Traff, traff@ecrc.de

ECRC - European Computer-Industry Research Centre - Mu:nchen, Deutschland