Ternary Computing

eviltwinimposter writes: "This month's American Scientist has an article about base-3 or ternary number systems, and their possible advantages for computing and other applications. Base-3 hardware could be smaller because of decreased number of components and use ternary logic to return less than, greater than, or equal, rather than just the binary true or false, although as the article says, '...you're not going to find a ternary minitower in stock at CompUSA.' Ternary also comes the closest of any integer base to e, the ideal base in terms of efficiency, and has some interesting properties such as unbounded square-free sequences. Also in other formats."

Comments

The future holds that...

[purduephotog]

... the choices will be 0, 1, and Maybe :)

Actually not a bad step- I wonder when they look at quantum computers using light ... this might be an easier step to integrate. There was a previous article here talking about light based quantum computing- give it a few years :)

Re:The future holds that...

[purduephotog]

Light has infinite wavelengths (not in reality as only certain wavelenghts are emitted, but you can combo those with different techniques to get infinite). I'm sorry you don't undertand much about quantumn computers constructed with light- i suggest reading up on it.

Since you have an infinite number of selections to choose from, and as was demonstrated that base E is the most efficient to represent numbers in (ie, infinite representation in base e is better than other bases), then it stands to reason that quantumn computers based on light should be designed to utilize base e, but since that isn't very practical ternary might be the first logical step.

And howcome I got rated offtopic? Quantumn computing is the logical next application of ternary computing, since binary is pretty much entrenched in everything from your local computre reseller to every time you toss a dime for 'heads or tails'.

Not base3 again

[GunFodder]

Seems like someone has to bring up base3 computing every once in a while, just like asynchronous circuit design. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons why they are technically superior. But it has taken us 50+ years to get to this point with synchronous circuit design and binary logic. It would take many years to get to this point using totally new technology, and in the meantime the current computer industry would continue to grow exponentially. I'll believe in these technologies when I see a useful example of them.

Re:Not base3 again

[Tom7]

The reason that the computer industry grows exponentially is exactly these kinds of paradigm-changing technologies.Most of these have happened in manufacturing processes, but I think as we exhaust that field we will be pushing the changes higher up the architecture. (x86, your days are numbered!)

That said, base 3 is probably pretty stupid. Asynchronous circuits, however, might really make a difference some day...

Why this is useful

[ChenLing]

I've read a lot of posts on how this will be difficult to implement using voltages and circuits....and you know what? It *IS* difficult to sense 3 different voltage.
The solution? Don't use electric circuits...don't use transistors.

Electric circuits will only get us so far, and then we'll have to move on to more 'exotic' hardware -- optical computing, molecular computing, quantum computing.......

Suppose a qubit's state is describe by the spin polarization of an electron pair -- they can either be both up, both down, or one of each -- you can't tell which one, so it's actually 3 states (balanced at that)......

In optical computing, suppose you can push the frequency of the lasers a little in either direction of 'neutral'...this is also base 3.

So what I'm trying to say is, don't just say "base-3 computing is not practical with current technology" -- because it isn't, but it WILL be practical (perhaps even more so than binary computing) with future technology.

And to finish with something lighter...
troolean x, y, z;
x = true;
y = false;
z = existentialism;

:)

Re:Ternary has been known to be efficient...

[nathanh]

Tertary would put us into "middle" voltage. But middle on the input, creates middle on the output, no direct way to get either high or low - making basic circuits more complex. But the real killer with "middle" is manufacturing. Let's say we use 2.8 Volts for the high level, 0.2 Volts for the low level. Due to manufacturing tolerances some chips transistors would be "fully" open at 2.3 Volts, others at 2.7 Volts. Easy to compensate on binary designs, you just use the 2.8 to switch the transistor, but for the middle level? What's required to switch a transistor to middle on one chip, is sufficient to open the transistor completely on another chip...

Why would you choose such a brain dead scheme? 2.8V as your "middle" choice? A sensible scheme would have been +ve rail, -ve rail, and ground. This builds upon 100 years of analog electronics and op-amps. Locking a voltage to a rail is extremely easy AND fast.

Plus disadvantages in power consumption and and and...

The benefit of a ternary scheme is that you have LESS power consumption to achieve the same work. Your individual flip-flap-flops are more complex than a binary flip-flop, but you need fewer flip-flap-flops. Overall you'll have fewer transistors and subsequently less heat than the equivalent binary circuit.

So your manufacturing tolerances become way smaller, and that of course reduces yield which increases cost.

The fact that fewer transistors are required to achieve the same work (despite the fact that there are more transistors per gate) will INCREASE the yields. This DECREASES costs.

How in hell did your post get modded up?