Slashdot Mirror


Brain-Inspired 'Memcomputer' Constructed

New submitter DorkFest writes: "Inspired by the human brain, UC San Diego scientists have constructed a new kind of computer that stores information and processes it in the same place. This prototype 'memcomputer' solves a problem involving a large dataset more quickly than conventional computers, while using far less energy. ... Such memcomputers could equal or surpass the potential of quantum computers, they say, but because they don't rely on exotic quantum effects are far more easily constructed." The team, led by UC San Diego physicist Massimiliano Di Ventra published their results in the journal Science Advances.

53 comments

  1. I didn't see the point until I read "analog" by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I didn't see the point to this design until I noticed the part about it being "analog".

    Until then, I wasn't seeing the difference between the memcomputer and older non-symmetric parallel processing machines which used to cluster a CPU with it's memory for each node/board of the system, but without the shared memory of an SMP system.

    Still, I'm afraid I can't see much practical application to their system, and they don't give any examples of the types of problems they think it'll be suitable for.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:I didn't see the point until I read "analog" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't see the point until I read the article 3 days ago on another site where it had reached the front page

    2. Re:I didn't see the point until I read "analog" by Mogusha · · Score: 1

      This article reminds me of using a quantum monte carlo algorithm vs a classical monte carlo. The quantum monte carlo scales linearly with the number of trotter slices, but really a real quantum algorithm should use 2^n slices each coupled to one another. It definitely sounds like the people who are doing this research are at least 30 years behind the technological times. The biggest reason for not having all the memory directly accessible in a single processor computer is technological feasibility and cost. Hence caching. A GPU can do massive parallel calculations just like this neural network seems to be doing. Fault tolerance would just be deactivating the various processors that are no longer functioning properly. Seems like this problem is already known and solved.

    3. Re:I didn't see the point until I read "analog" by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Informative

      It isn't a neural network. It's a sort of parallel analog computer although they do discuss the possibility of implementing it with digital technology.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    4. Re:I didn't see the point until I read "analog" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      " a CPU with it's memory"

        I'm afraid I can't see much practical application to using an apostrophe there.

    5. Re: I didn't see the point until I read "analog" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is pathetic and pedantic redundant?

    6. Re:I didn't see the point until I read "analog" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think punctuation is tough in English, wait till you see this guy's C++, Nitpicking? Damn straight.

    7. Re:I didn't see the point until I read "analog" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Obviously his English teacher didn't point out his mistakes, so when someone else tries to help him learn, you assume this is a bad thing. Just because you know the difference between its and it's doesn't mean everyone does.

      .

    8. Re:I didn't see the point until I read "analog" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think there's a point until storage becomes faster, right? I'm assuming that IP points to nand instead of RAM? It's implied, anyway. I think that if nand memory was fast enough, we would already be processing in the same place we are storing. Unless there's a different way that registers are set up. That it handles operations that process large amounts of data faster leads me to believe that the registers are larger or variable. So, maybe the cpu even stores registers on nand. Then they wouldn't have a 64bit limit. I'm guessing here, in that case, that there would be no memory of any type on the cpu, and that even the cpu itself may be on the same silicon as the nand. Which would increase access times as well. Makes sense. You store your data on the cpu, the cpu registers, cache, everything are on the nand. Not a bad idea... It doesn't say, but I'm thinking this is along the lines of what they are doing.

  2. Not Computational RAM by cold+fjord · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At first I thought they might be doing some flavor of Computational RAM, but they did something rather different. The system is analog. And it is suggested memristors could provide useful in implementation of similar systems.

    Just a couple sections I found interesting FTA:

    As we discuss in the following paragraphs, the machine we built is analog and hence would be scalable to very large numbers of memprocessors only in the absence of noise or using some error-correcting codes. This problem derives from the fact that in the present realization, we use the frequencies of the collective state to encode information, and to maintain the energy of the system bounded, the amplitudes of the frequencies are dampened exponentially with the number of memprocessors involved. However, this latter limitation is due to the particular choice of encoding the information in the collective state and could be overcome by using other realizations of digital memcomputing machines and using error-correcting codes. For example in (8), two of the authors (F.T. and M.D.) proposed a different way to encode a quadratic information overhead in a network of memristors that is not subject to this energy bound.

    These properties ultimately derive from a different type of architecture: the topology of memcomputing machines is defined by a network of interacting memory cells (memprocessors), and the dynamics of this network are described by a collective state that can be used to store and process information simultaneously. This collective state is reminiscent of the collective (entangled) state of many qubits in quantum computation, where the entangled state is used to solve efficiently certain types of problems such as factorization (9). Here, we prove experimentally that such collective states can also be implemented in classical systems by fabricating appropriate networks of memprocessors, thus creating either linear or nonlinear combinations out of the states of each memprocessor. The result is the first proof of concept of a machine able to solve an NP-complete problem in polynomial time using collective states.

    In summary, we have demonstrated experimentally a deterministic memcomputing machine that is able to solve an N P -complete problem in polynomial time (actually in one step) using only polynomial resources. The actual machine we built clearly suffers from technological limitations, that impair its scalability due to unavoidable noise. These limitations derive from the fact that we encode the information directly into frequencies, and so ultimately into energy. This issue could, however, be overcome either using error correcting codes or with other UMMs that use other ways to encode such information and are digital at least in their input and output. Irrespective, this machine represents the first experimental realization of a UMM that uses the collective state of the whole memprocessor network to exploit the information overhead theoretically introduced in (8). Finally, it is worth mentioning that the machine we have fabricated is not a general purpose one. However, other realizations of UMMs are general purpose and can be easily built with available technology (22–26). Their practical realization would thus be a powerful alternative to current Turing-like machines.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:Not Computational RAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh, the sentence ", we have demonstrated experimentally a deterministic memcomputing machine that is able to solve an N P -complete problem in polynomial time (actually in one step) using only polynomial resources." seems like it needs a hell of a lot more exposition and independent verification. Considering it would essentially rewrite the conventional modern understanding of the world.

    2. Re:Not Computational RAM by mynamestolen · · Score: 2

      http://www.scottaaronson.com/b...

      and can someone confirm this UMM (Universal Memcomputing Machine) is not the UMM U-MM Unbounded-MM related to RMM of the class of languages recognized by KWQFA's with cut-point (i.e. with unbounded error) of Brodsky and Pippenger 1999 paper . And I found this while trying to understand. "What is the largest probability with which a 1QFA can accept the language. in contrast to the model 1QFA discussed so far, that has been then termed as MM-1QFA (many measurements) model."

      --
      work in progress
    3. Re:Not Computational RAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A memcomputing machine is Turing complete, but it isn't a Turing machine. This has no relevance for P=?NP. They are quite clear about that.

    4. Re:Not Computational RAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm...
      UMM as defined by Brodksy,Pippenger is a class of languages recognized by an MM-QFA = a Measure-Many Quantum Finite Automaton with Unbounded error.
      UMM here = Universal Memcomputer Machine. Totally unrelated. The space of Three Letter Acronyms is not unbounded, so collisions are unavoidable.

    5. Re:Not Computational RAM by mynamestolen · · Score: 1

      ta

      --
      work in progress
  3. FPGA anyone? by evanh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It sounds awfully like an FPGA just from the snippet. There have been FPGA variants that are self-reconfigurable in the past also but they fell by the wayside from lack of demand.

    1. Re:FPGA anyone? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      it sounds to me like an ASIC with lots of memory built in

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    2. Re:FPGA anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > but they fell by the wayside
      What do you mean?
      Every Xilinx FPGA I'm aware off right now has self-reconfigurable capabilities.
      They've all had an ICAP going back to at least Virtex 4, and as far as I know all the Altera FPGAs have similar functionality.

  4. As nobody knows how the brain works... by gweihir · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... this is, of course, complete bullshit. Or to put it less friendly: This person is trying to con the public.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:As nobody knows how the brain works... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever considered eating your own turds?

    2. Re:As nobody knows how the brain works... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Knowing how the brain works" is not a binary state, that goes from nothing to 100% with no middle ground. We don't know everything about the brain, but we do know a lot about the structure, both on the large scale and how neurons connect to each other. There are a lot of computational analogues to what we do know about the brain, in which case it is perfectly legit to say they are similar to how the brain works. And even false understanding of how the brain works can still produced brain inspired designs...

    3. Re:As nobody knows how the brain works... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Another possibility is that the research has been over-hyped - the article reads like a journalist trying to describe something they don't understand to and audience they expect to understand even less.

    4. Re:As nobody knows how the brain works... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What do you mean, nobody knows how the brain works? Neuroscience has made some progress over the years, you know. We might not know everything (especially once you start getting into the emergence of consciousness) but that doesn't mean no-one knows anything.

      In any case, it's entirely possible to be inspired by something while still having little to no idea about how it works.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    5. Re:As nobody knows how the brain works... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically, only someone who eats their own turds on a regular basis would think to suggest that to someone else.

  5. "Brain Inspired" by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    low-hanging fruit.

  6. Wat? by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    Stores information and processes it in the same place? You mean like every other computer ever?

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Wat? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Stores information and processes it in the same place? You mean like every other computer ever?

      Well, no. I didn't RTFA because I'm not new here, but ordinary computers have to copy the data from memory into a register before they can process it. They don't process it in-place. And most data is not kept in memory all the time, either, but I figured they meant the first sense.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Wat? by Bengie · · Score: 2

      I've never seen a computer that does this. Most CPUs I know of use registers to store data and execution units to manipulate data from the registers.

    3. Re:Wat? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Ordinary computers don't store and process information at the same place.

      Data is stored on disks, or in the cloud, loaded into memory for processing and finally processed in a processor.

      The differences are huge, go back to school!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:Wat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every other computer has a processor in each memory cell? I don't think so.

    5. Re:Wat? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      You don't know much about computers, do you?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  7. Just what we need. by o_ferguson · · Score: 0

    More shitty words we can't pronounce. Thanks a lot, science.

    --
    - In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
  8. Rex's brain by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    memcomputer

    That sounds like something out of Fallout New Vegas. Like Mr House would have a "memcomputer" keeping his accounts.

    The nerds at UCSD are gonna have to work on the name to sound a little less 1950s. Or maybe that's what they're going for?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Rex's brain by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Analog computing is more of a '60s thing...

    2. Re:Rex's brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only a matter of time before Femputer forces us all have lots of snoo-snoo.

    3. Re:Rex's brain by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Analog computing is more of a '60s thing...

      I think you mean it's more of a 16th century thing.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Rex's brain by vikingpower · · Score: 1

      It's happening right now in your brain, nitwit.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
  9. A complexity theorist refutes "memcomputing" by K.+S.+Van+Horn · · Score: 5, Informative

    Good Lord, people, Scott Aaronson refuted this memcomputer nonsense some time ago:

    Memrefuting

    The short story is that all they've done is a sleight of hand where they smuggle the exponential blowup somewhere else.

    1. Re:A complexity theorist refutes "memcomputing" by tgv · · Score: 1

      Interesting. If you liked the OP, this is a must-read.

    2. Re:A complexity theorist refutes "memcomputing" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well of course, the size of the machine (#processors) grows linearly with the size of the input, and the number of connections grows up to quadratically, and it is assumed that this growing number of connections per cell doesn't affect processing speed. Or the network would have to be very sparse/local.

    3. Re:A complexity theorist refutes "memcomputing" by ExekielS · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not an expert on this topic, but reading that article I notice it claims that the paper does not provide an alternate method of encoding information when the article does exactly that and provides a digital means of handling it. I don't know if their claim is plausible, but this "refutation" seems weak at best, given everything it ignores.

      --
      ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
  10. wow! by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    They invented a processor with level 1 cache? WOW! I assume they phrased it incorrectly and in reality it does computing logic in the RAM, not stored the data inside the processor....like modern processors do.

    1. Re:wow! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      They invented a processor with level 1 cache? WOW!

      No, they didn't.

      I assume they phrased it incorrectly

      I assume you skimmed the article, didn't really understand it, but figured you could still get away with sounding condescendingly intelligent to around 50% of Slashdot readers.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  11. Mod parent up! by Prune · · Score: 1

    Parent post is the only post needed in response to this story. If even a quantum computer can merely get a polynomial speedup in the best case, it's kind of silly to suppose that a classical analog computer can get an exponential speedup. And what really grinds my gears is the implication that superturing computation might be possible, which would violate the Bekenstein bound.

    --
    "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  12. Debunked. In February. Editors should EDIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can the Slashdot "Editors" please check if the stories they post are in fact nonsense that has been debunked and either not post the story, or mention the debunking.

    Nah, that would require EDITing.

    http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?cat=17

    1. Re:Debunked. In February. Editors should EDIT by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      It would also kill the comments section.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  13. This is pure BS by vikingpower · · Score: 3, Interesting

    all frequencies involved in the collective state (1) are dampened by the factor 2-n

    And this is where they stuff away the rabbit they pretend to be pulling out of the hat. For any moderately sized, non-trivial SSP ( Subset Sum Problem ), this brings down the produced output signal's readability to being so hard to detect that you need exponential time to decide upon a reading. Which debunks this entire piece of bullshit in one phrase. 'Nuff said, OP is BS. QED.

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:This is pure BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still, it seems a fun weekend project to do until quantum legos and quanduinos arrive ;)

  14. The True LISP Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a new kind of computer that stores information and processes it in the same place

    Finally, it has arrived! Again.

  15. Memcomputer? by robi5 · · Score: 1

    What's wrong with memputer?

  16. What is the meaning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We Don't Take No Shit From A Machine