A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » Intel
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What is the absolute smallest instruction set do you need to make aworking computer?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 22nd 19, 04:25 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64
pyotr filipivich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default What is the absolute smallest instruction set do you need to make a working computer?

VanguardLH on Sun, 22 Sep 2019 01:26:19 -0500 typed in
alt.windows7.general the following:
Yousuf Khan wrote:

What's your guess? 100 instructions? 50 instructions? 10? Would you
believe just 1 instruction!? And that instruction is implied, you don't
even need an opcode for that! And you're not going to believe what that
one instruction is either! This video explains how it's possible.

https://youtu.be/jRZDnetjGuo


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_in...n_set_computer
Concept proposed back in 1956.

It is a computational model used for teaching. It would be too slow for
physical implementation. That it can be done doesn't mean anyone cares.


Martin Gardner had an article about a "theoretical" 'primitive
computer using pulleys and ropes in place of transistors (or tubes).
In theory it would work, in practice there would be too much
imprecision from the slack/stretch in the ropes for it to work.

--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
  #12  
Old September 22nd 19, 05:52 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64
Jeff Barnett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default What is the absolute smallest instruction set do you need to makea working computer?

Yousuf Khan wrote on 9/22/2019 6:59 AM:
On 9/22/2019 1:47 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
The machine I'm trying to recall is Turing Complete. In other words it
can implement an interpreter that can "execute" any Turing machine
with any input tape - it's a theoretical machine. If you are talking
about a machine with real components, that's a horse of a different
color and quite puny in comparison. This 2 register machine, with few
instructions was all the theoretical rage some 60 or 70 years ago and
was described in many text books. I thought your original question was
fishing for what I described.


Well, I don't know anything about "Turing Complete" machines. If such
Turing machines can be run through any current general purpose computer
architecture, then this theoretical machine should be able to run it too.

The concept is not about artificial intelligence, but about general
purpose computing at its most basic level. About 2 or 3 decades ago, we
had the debate about RISC vs. CISC architectures. Without getting into
debates about which of those concepts won in the end, this is taking
that debate to the next level, and asking what is the most basic set of
instructions that can eliminate all other instructions? So they've
eliminated every other instruction, and replaced it with this one
instruction, called SUBLEQ, "Subtract Less Than or Equal To". It only
does subtractions on data, and branches only when the result is less
than or equal to zero. So this is the ultimate RISC architecture, the
OISC (One Instruction Set Computing) architecture.

The page below links to an OISC interpreter and tools.

Oleg Mazonka - Languages - SUBLEQ
http://mazonka.com/subleq/


What I described has zip to do with artificial intelligence and could
never be implemented in real circuits - the registers are of whatever
size the computation needs. It's like a TM tape can get as long as
necessary. Note that the theoretical machine had no memory other than
its two registers and a "code" store. It also worked with minimum
instructions but could do any computable task.
--
Jeff Barnett

  #13  
Old September 22nd 19, 09:07 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default What is the absolute smallest instruction set do you need to make a working computer?

In message , Roger Blake
writes:
On 2019-09-21, Yousuf Khan wrote:
What's your guess? 100 instructions? 50 instructions? 10? Would you
believe just 1 instruction!? And that instruction is implied, you don't
even need an opcode for that! And you're not going to believe what that
one instruction is either! This video explains how it's possible.

https://youtu.be/jRZDnetjGuo


Interesting. In terms of commercially-successful CPUs the most minimal
I've worked with was the DEC PDP-8, which had 8 instructions (3-bit opcode).
However, one of those (OPR) permitted the programmer to combine several
operations into one instruction cycle by setting the appropriate bits.


The first computer I learnt on had 8 instructions (3 bit opcode); it was
a "computer" by Mr. Parr's definition of having a conditional jump among
its op.s [as opposed to a programmable calculator - common at the time,
1970s, which didn't], where the decision was based on the result of (in
this case) previous instructions. (The one-opcode answer given above
qualifies, as it is subtract-and-jump-if.)

The PDP-8 was a 12-bit word-oriented machine sold from 1965-1979. Early
models used discrete transistors, the last models were CMOS microprocessors.
There was also a serial model that operated on one bit at a time - slow!!
No stack was employed - subroutines worked via the caller writing the
return address into the first word of the called routine. Fun times!

BRENDA (BaRnardian Electronic Numerical Demonstration Apparatus) was a
7-bit machine (16 memory locations); it _was_ a serial machine, also
operating in ones complement, instead of the now-universal twos
complement. It looked like everybody's idea of a computer then: a wall
of filament bulbs (one for each bit in each memory location, plus the
other registers such as accumulator, prog. counter, etcetera). No
subroutines. It was the shape and size of the luggage space of a Hillman
Imp (British car of the time), as that's where HCP built it. It was
modular, using transistors - I believe he actually got the fourth form
[tenth grade I think] one year to make the modules.

I can still remember the opcodes:
Z clear accumulator
A address add the contents of address to accumulator
S address subtract the contents of address from accumulator
T address transfer accumulator to address
I address stop for input (which went into address)
J address jump to address+1
K address conditional jump (if negative IIRR) to address+1
E stop
Note that Z and E - 000 and 111 - had no parameter; a wily programmer
used those to store constants.

Mr. Parr produced a booklet, including some exercises; they started with
simple things like 3a+b (Z, A15, A15, A15, A14, E) and running totals
(I15, A15, J15), but leading up to the 50th example which was IIRR
calculate the highest common factor of two numbers (which I never
managed).
http://forum.6502.org/download/file....7446aed16b6825
d2bb7c5999023c
http://forum.6502.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2333
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Q. How much is 2 + 2?
A. Thank you so much for asking your question.
Are you still having this problem? I'll be delighted to help you. Please
restate the problem twice and include your Windows version along with
all error logs.
- Mayayana in alt.windows7.general, 2018-11-1
  #14  
Old September 22nd 19, 09:15 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default What is the absolute smallest instruction set do you need to make a working computer?

In message , pyotr
filipivich writes:
[]
Martin Gardner had an article about a "theoretical" 'primitive
computer using pulleys and ropes in place of transistors (or tubes).
In theory it would work, in practice there would be too much
imprecision from the slack/stretch in the ropes for it to work.

Babbage (arguably only with modern materials) made a mechanical machine
work. There are the mechanical equivalents of squaring circuits,
thresholds etcetera. Electronic computers could be made to work with
three or four voltage levels rather than two - it just reduces the noise
margin, which puts limits on speed and distances. Presumably a
pulleys/ropes machine could be made, as long as there were thresholds,
and the mechanical equivalents of amplifiers (a rope-operated clutch
perhaps? I'm not really a mechanical engineer).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Flobalob" actually means "Flowerpot" in Oddle-Poddle.
  #15  
Old September 23rd 19, 02:36 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64
pyotr filipivich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default What is the absolute smallest instruction set do you need to make a working computer?

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" on Sun, 22 Sep 2019
21:15:45 +0100 typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
In message , pyotr
filipivich writes:
[]
Martin Gardner had an article about a "theoretical" 'primitive
computer using pulleys and ropes in place of transistors (or tubes).
In theory it would work, in practice there would be too much
imprecision from the slack/stretch in the ropes for it to work.

Babbage (arguably only with modern materials) made a mechanical machine
work. There are the mechanical equivalents of squaring circuits,
thresholds etcetera. Electronic computers could be made to work with
three or four voltage levels rather than two - it just reduces the noise
margin, which puts limits on speed and distances. Presumably a
pulleys/ropes machine could be made, as long as there were thresholds,
and the mechanical equivalents of amplifiers (a rope-operated clutch
perhaps? I'm not really a mechanical engineer).


It is funny in a way. Garden was reporting a supposed "discovery"
of a "computer" discovered on a south pacific island. Yes, one could
probably be made to work. Wintergatan - Marble Machine has made what
was originally a CGI video into a working machine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvUU8joBb1Q A fascinating study in
its own right.
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
  #16  
Old September 23rd 19, 04:31 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64
Rene Lamontagne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default What is the absolute smallest instruction set do you need to makea working computer?

On 2019-09-22 8:36 p.m., pyotr filipivich wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" on Sun, 22 Sep 2019
21:15:45 +0100 typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
In message , pyotr
filipivich writes:
[]
Martin Gardner had an article about a "theoretical" 'primitive
computer using pulleys and ropes in place of transistors (or tubes).
In theory it would work, in practice there would be too much
imprecision from the slack/stretch in the ropes for it to work.

Babbage (arguably only with modern materials) made a mechanical machine
work. There are the mechanical equivalents of squaring circuits,
thresholds etcetera. Electronic computers could be made to work with
three or four voltage levels rather than two - it just reduces the noise
margin, which puts limits on speed and distances. Presumably a
pulleys/ropes machine could be made, as long as there were thresholds,
and the mechanical equivalents of amplifiers (a rope-operated clutch
perhaps? I'm not really a mechanical engineer).


It is funny in a way. Garden was reporting a supposed "discovery"
of a "computer" discovered on a south pacific island. Yes, one could
probably be made to work. Wintergatan - Marble Machine has made what
was originally a CGI video into a working machine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvUU8joBb1Q A fascinating study in
its own right.


Absolutely wonderful machine and a brilliant inventor/builder. I didn't
know it existed.

Rene

  #17  
Old September 23rd 19, 05:12 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64
pyotr filipivich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default What is the absolute smallest instruction set do you need to make a working computer?

Rene Lamontagne on Sun, 22 Sep 2019 22:31:28 -0500
typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
On 2019-09-22 8:36 p.m., pyotr filipivich wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" on Sun, 22 Sep 2019
21:15:45 +0100 typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
In message , pyotr
filipivich writes:
[]
Martin Gardner had an article about a "theoretical" 'primitive
computer using pulleys and ropes in place of transistors (or tubes).
In theory it would work, in practice there would be too much
imprecision from the slack/stretch in the ropes for it to work.

Babbage (arguably only with modern materials) made a mechanical machine
work. There are the mechanical equivalents of squaring circuits,
thresholds etcetera. Electronic computers could be made to work with
three or four voltage levels rather than two - it just reduces the noise
margin, which puts limits on speed and distances. Presumably a
pulleys/ropes machine could be made, as long as there were thresholds,
and the mechanical equivalents of amplifiers (a rope-operated clutch
perhaps? I'm not really a mechanical engineer).


It is funny in a way. Garden was reporting a supposed "discovery"
of a "computer" discovered on a south pacific island. Yes, one could
probably be made to work. Wintergatan - Marble Machine has made what
was originally a CGI video into a working machine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvUU8joBb1Q A fascinating study in
its own right.


Absolutely wonderful machine and a brilliant inventor/builder. I didn't
know it existed.


It is a fascinating machine, both from the design concept through
to the latest build. Fascinating as well are the machinist bits (the
variable speed clutch to adjust timing for the kick drum).
In my boxes of book I have the 4 volume set of "Ingenious Devices"
- or "How we did this before stepper motors and computer controls."

--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Absolute Computrace B00ze Asus Motherboards 4 August 16th 14 04:00 AM
Exceeding maximum absolute voltage larry moe 'n curly Homebuilt PC's 15 September 22nd 10 06:50 PM
I want to make my computer faster Ozzie General 4 July 23rd 06 11:58 PM
Absolute Horrible Day Today for my PC. Need desperate help. Shinnokxz Homebuilt PC's 2 August 26th 05 08:44 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.