[imtringued]

You're completely missing the point here.

You can reduce all Boolean logic to NAND, but that doesn't actually mean that semiconductor fabs translate their HDL to NAND gates, because it is possible to build complex gates that directly implement higher level operations in a single gate.

Your "cost of computation" objection can be easily resolved by adding more operators, which makes it boring from a research perspective.

Meanwhile the loss of expressivity can only be compensated by encoding algorithms directly into the expression tree. Your objection that an infinite series is a bad thing rings hollow, since you now introduce the concept of an infinitely sized expression tree. That sounds much more impractical than implementing an algorithm for the exponential and logarithm functions.

[SideQuark]

Show me a way to physically compute exp or ln that is less gates than add. More gates means costlier in $, more energy in compute, and for these functions, higher latency.

You don’t get to make up free ops, claim there is no cost in reality, and hand wave away reality.

There are infinitely many ways to do what the paper did. There’s no gain other than it’s pretty. It loses on every practical front to simply using current ops and architectures.

[lioeters]

> no gain other than it’s pretty

Conceptual elegance is worth something, isn't it? I don't mean just aesthetic pleasure, as in recreational mathematics, but there's often (not always) value in being able to succinctly describe a wide range of phenomena with a small number of primitives. It could open up new ways of understanding or working that wasn't possible before. Not saying this specific discovery fits the description, but it seems too early to dismiss the idea entirely based on its im/practicality compared to existing solutions.

Aren't there examples in the history of mathematics, where a new idea was criticized for being impractical, then later found to have applications or implications, possibly unexpected even to the person who discovered it?

[ageofthun]

I feel sad when pragmatics comes in scientific discussions... that's not what science should be (I think). But I value the discussion this paper is bringing to distinct contexts (even outside academia). That by itself adds value to this work.

[zonked45]

i am outisde of academia, i am told there are significant findings here at monogate.dev . just started vibe coding from the paper.

appreciate any feedback

[Qem]

> Show me a way to physically compute exp or ln that is less gates than add.

IIRC a resistor in series to a capacitor does the trick, for exp.

[SideQuark]

No, it approximates exp poorly over an infinitesimally small interval compared to exp. Resistors and capacitors are no where ideal components, which is why they have spec sheets to show how quickly they diverge.

If we’re making sloppy approximations to a tiny range of exp, then I too can do it with a few terms.

[gyb997]

The feasibility of memristor analog circuits is evident, and I believe this paper represents a valuable early exploration. We've been constrained by Boolean logic for quite some time now.

[SideQuark]

The world has had many types of logic before and after Boolean logic was created, many used in computing. Boolean logic isn’t a constraint; it’s used where it’s useful, and others are used where they’re useful.