quentron.com

[profitis]

Talking about speed.Here's something of interest:

(Nanowerk News) Switches are devices
that are omnipresent in computers as they
are crucial to manipulate information
encoded as bits. To greatly improve the
speed with which information is
processed, much work is being done
worldwide to realize optical switches that
control information encoded as light
pulses. To date, the speed of optical
switches is limited by the properties of the
underlying materials, but not by the speed
of light.
Now scientists from the MESA+ Institute
for Nanotechnology at the University of
Twente and the FOM-Institute Amolf in
Amsterdam in the Netherlands, and the
Institute for Nanoscience and Cryogenics
(CEA/INAC) in Grenoble in France have
managed to switch-on and switch-off a
semiconductor optical cavity within a
world-record short time of less than 1
picosecond, or one millionth of a millionth
second. The results will soon be published
in the leading American journal Applied
Physics Letters ("Ultimate fast optical
switching of a planar microcavity in the
telecom wavelength range " ), and are
expected to yield ultrafast optical data
communication, tiny on-chip light sources
and lasers, and perhaps even switches for
quantum bits of information.

[memoryman]

sarkeizen, YOU stated: " a) A theorem is different than a theory.  A theorem is a mathematical proof."
if you cannot understand that 'a statement', which is ALL a theorem is, is NOT proof by itself, then you may be a very dull knife indeed, likely the dullest in the drawer (at least the drawer that I am in).

[sarkeizen]

If I used the word 'sort' before then I was technicaly wrong,apologies,this is why I dislike mechanical representations of the demon.it REACTS instantaneously.reacts to energy demands.ok now?

Are you saying that Philip's machine can't sort?

[sarkeizen]

sarkeizen, YOU stated: " a) A theorem is different than a theory.  A theorem is a mathematical proof."
if you cannot understand that 'a statement', which is ALL a theorem is, is NOT proof by itself

So your argument is, effectively that the term "theorem" can NEVER in ANY CASE legitimately refer to a proof it can ONLY AND EVER refer to a statement? 

Just a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Aside: Is there a term for people who rely on Wikipedia for their education to the point of sounding stupid?  Wikipidiots? Moro-pedians?  Not sure if there's one in common use but someone should invent one if not.

[memoryman]

So your argument is, effectively that the term "theorem" can NEVER in ANY CASE legitimately refer to a proof it can ONLY AND EVER refer to a statement? 

Just a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Aside: Is there a term for people who rely on Wikipedia for their education to the point of sounding stupid?  Wikipidiots? Moro-pedians?  Not sure if there's one in common use but someone should invent one if not.

a simple "yes" or "no" may suffice for you; you did not say that it 'may refer to' but 'is'.
Aside: You assumed that I relied on Wikipedia; wrong again. I can give you other sources. Do YOU get to make up definitions?