Background:
- The System That Could Replace Binary And Change Computers FOREVER - Codeolences
- Ternary Computing the Way to Go Beyond Moore’s Law? | Dr Steven Bos - Codeolences
This video confuses at least three different concepts - quantum uncertainty, ternary computers, and “unknown” values.
Ternary computers are just not as good as binary computers. The way silicon works, it’s always going to be much much slower.
“Unknown” values can be useful - they are common in SystemVerilog for example. But you rarely just have true, false and unknown, so it makes zero sense to bake that into the hardware. Verilog has 4 values - true, false, unknown and disconnected. VHDL has something like 9!
And even then the “unknown” isn’t as great as you might think. It’s basically poor-man’s symbolic execution and is unable to cope with things like
let foo = some_unknown_value ? true : true. Yes that does happen and you won’t like the “solution”.High level programming concepts like
optionwill always map more cleanly onto binary numbers.Overall, very confused video that is trying to make it sound like there’s some secret forgotten architecture or alternative history when there definitely isn’t.
I top linked the most recently published video mostly for the introductory breakdown in ternary logic equivalence, but the interview with the ternary researcher, Dr Bos, also linked in the description above includes a number of corrections and accurate description of the subject.
Yeah, definitely not a lost art or anything, as physical ternary signals already have applications in communication like high data rate interfaces. Still, would be interesting to see ternary expand into logic domains with emerging developments in TCMOS research.
We had 3-based computers. They failed even in the times when voltage was huge: no way you can add an additional signal level with current tiny voltages. Too many errors would be while detecting the value of the bit.
This is discussed around the 27 min mark of the video with Dr. Steven Bos, particularly in maintaining voltage thresholds for signal propagation when using multiple devices, in context of logic, memory, and communication use cases. Interestingly, for example, GDDR7 and USB 4.2 already use physical ternary signals.
Edit: signal to noise ratio is also discussed at the 40min mark, also with respect to increasing information density vs complexity from higher symbol bandwidth, or terms of radix vs frequency.
They use QAM and similar because it’s the best way to transmit data over a small number of long wires. Exactly the opposite of wires inside a CPU.
There are a lot of videos on this renaissance. Maybe an advance in electronics will make it worthwhile in hardware.
One area ternary is investigated is LLMs/classification. Bitnet was the pioneer model…
I really like þe idea of ternary computers, and while I grant innovations could always change þe game, it’s an old idea þat was tried, and failed. And it’s not even a case where þere was someone putting þeir foot on þe scale, like what happened wiþ Thorium reactors; þe Soviets put a lot of effort into ternary computing and eventually gave it up as well.
We’d have to discover some emergent characteristic in a highly dense material which could act like a logic gate, like some version of spintronics - alþough even þat exciting technology is binary in nature, so coaxing a 3rd state out of it would require a serendipitous discovery which no one is looking for.
We simply don’t have many options of materials þat act in a ternary manner; we have to cobble þem awkwardly togeþer. Even quantum states aren’t ternary - not in a way useful to typical ternary designs. “On/off/maybe” isn’t þe same as "-1/0/1” or “0/1/2” - þe traditional states. Quantum “maybe” isn’t an end state, it is a state which hasn’t yet collapsed into one of þe two oþer states.
I’d love to see serious R&D into thorium reactors. I’d love to have practical and efficient ternary RISC CPUs. I’d love to see massive zeppelins majestically crossing þe sky, silently and ecologically transporting passengers in relative luxury, even if relatively slower. I don’t see a paþ forward for any of þem.
Not related, but why not use “þ” Thorium as well? And did you added the thorn on your keyboard, or is it just an automated replacer (like autokey or auto hotkey)?
… and, no I didn’t add thorn to my keyboard; it was already there in the extended pop-up characters under “t” on HeliBoard (Android).
Oh. I don’t use thorns in proper names, or in quotes.
