By: anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com), October 19, 2012 8:00 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Robert Myers (rbmyersusa.delete@this.gmail.com) on October 19, 2012 7:24 am wrote:
> anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on October 19, 2012 2:27 am wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Cough up the numbers,
> > sir. Instead of handwaving, let's just see
> some of your numbers. Cite some
> > studies or published results.
> >
>
> > For example, you claimed (without citing
> > anything of course) that
> 3d FFTs don't scale well, but at least for some
> > problems, they actually
> do, as this study shows. I can frame it as a reply to an
> > exact quote of
> yours just a couple of posts up, if you would like.
>
> Very near the beginning
> of this exchange, I attempted to beg off. I had no intention of ever going near
> this discussion again, because I am just tired of it.
>
> A discussion very much
> like the one we just had and that I described is in the archives of comp.arch.
> It's been a long, long, long, tedious discussion, and you, despite your great
> importance to the world, haven't been a part of it.
You can sign off any time you like. In fact, you did not even have to sign on. I did not enter the discussion claiming supercomputers can solve all physical problems, and HPC development is economically perfect.
Your strategy of making an incredible claim, and then waffling on with handwaving and avoiding details and attacking me when asked for evidence, and dismissing evidence against, does not really do anything for you.
I hate to say it, but that strategy is pretty consistent with most crackpots I have encountered. So you're not giving me much to go on here.
> The discussion, with the
> numbers, of how Blue Gene scaled up to thousands of nodes and beat *all* of the
> competition happened, with citations. Go find it yourself. It went exactly the
> way I have described it. The shootout is only a few years back, and surely
> someone with your comprehensive knowledge of HPC would have been at the most
> important HPC conference of the year, and heard the results reported first
> hand.
>
> Now you come along with another paper that appears to claim something
> on the level of "we have discovered perpetual motion." I'm quite sure the paper
> isn't claiming that, and I'm quite sure that, if I put enough time into it, I
> will discover the ghost in the machine. If I had knowledge only of one version
> of Blue Gene, or didn't have knowledge of how later versions of Blue Gene
> compared to how everything else that anyone could put forth performed (it beat
> them), I might be interested in your paper, but such is not the case.
>
> If
> you're really interested in the issue and not in trolling, you have my email
> address, and I will undoubtedly find the time to figure out what's really going
> on in your magical paper. I don't have your email address, so, if and when I
> get around to it, you will never know.
If you're really interested in providing details and evidence for what you've been claiming on this forum, I'll be here. This way, everybody else gets the benefit of your input too.
> anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on October 19, 2012 2:27 am wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Cough up the numbers,
> > sir. Instead of handwaving, let's just see
> some of your numbers. Cite some
> > studies or published results.
> >
>
> > For example, you claimed (without citing
> > anything of course) that
> 3d FFTs don't scale well, but at least for some
> > problems, they actually
> do, as this study shows. I can frame it as a reply to an
> > exact quote of
> yours just a couple of posts up, if you would like.
>
> Very near the beginning
> of this exchange, I attempted to beg off. I had no intention of ever going near
> this discussion again, because I am just tired of it.
>
> A discussion very much
> like the one we just had and that I described is in the archives of comp.arch.
> It's been a long, long, long, tedious discussion, and you, despite your great
> importance to the world, haven't been a part of it.
You can sign off any time you like. In fact, you did not even have to sign on. I did not enter the discussion claiming supercomputers can solve all physical problems, and HPC development is economically perfect.
Your strategy of making an incredible claim, and then waffling on with handwaving and avoiding details and attacking me when asked for evidence, and dismissing evidence against, does not really do anything for you.
I hate to say it, but that strategy is pretty consistent with most crackpots I have encountered. So you're not giving me much to go on here.
> The discussion, with the
> numbers, of how Blue Gene scaled up to thousands of nodes and beat *all* of the
> competition happened, with citations. Go find it yourself. It went exactly the
> way I have described it. The shootout is only a few years back, and surely
> someone with your comprehensive knowledge of HPC would have been at the most
> important HPC conference of the year, and heard the results reported first
> hand.
>
> Now you come along with another paper that appears to claim something
> on the level of "we have discovered perpetual motion." I'm quite sure the paper
> isn't claiming that, and I'm quite sure that, if I put enough time into it, I
> will discover the ghost in the machine. If I had knowledge only of one version
> of Blue Gene, or didn't have knowledge of how later versions of Blue Gene
> compared to how everything else that anyone could put forth performed (it beat
> them), I might be interested in your paper, but such is not the case.
>
> If
> you're really interested in the issue and not in trolling, you have my email
> address, and I will undoubtedly find the time to figure out what's really going
> on in your magical paper. I don't have your email address, so, if and when I
> get around to it, you will never know.
If you're really interested in providing details and evidence for what you've been claiming on this forum, I'll be here. This way, everybody else gets the benefit of your input too.
