Talk:Billiard-ball computer

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Favonian in topic Requested move


The Emperor's New Mind

edit

I removed the link to Penrose's "Emperor's New Mind" as a source at the beginning of the article, because that book principally concerns other matters than the billiard ball computer. A better source is the original Fredkin-Toffoli paper cited later in the article. I also added links to reversible process and reversible computingCharlesHBennett (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Requested move

edit
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Billiard-ball computer. Favonian (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply


Billiard ball computerBilliard-ball computer – which was the article title before SMcCandlish (talk) (contributions) moved Billiard-ball computer to Billiard ball computer over redirect because "Title doesn't match article text.", on 29 October 2011‎. Per MOS:HYPHEN, use a hyphen to link related terms in compound modifiers, i.e., to distinguish billiard ball computer from billiard ball computer. I can update the article text to use hyphens, and more articles link to Billiard-ball computer than Billiard ball computer. Would like to have a consensus before editing Wikipedia for consistent use of the term across articles. —Wbm1058 (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

  • Weak support. The early papers on the subject seem to be split on whether or not to use the hyphen — I think Bennett used the hyphen but Fredkin and Margolus didn't. I don't think the incoming wikilink count means much, it probably reflects more the fact that the name was hyphenated here until the recent move. And I don't think the grammatical argument is very strong, because there's no common meaning of a "ball computer" for us to get confused about. So I don't think it much matters which of these two names we use. In the end, I lean towards restoring the hyphen in the name, but only because of WP:RETAIN. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. A case can be made for the form without hyphen. Both forms are found in published texts, with the non-hyphen form predominating. But as things stand, WP:HYPHEN makes a clear stylistic recommendation for the hyphen, and it is well supported in quality publishing. The guidelines at WP:MOS are set up exactly to help settle uncertainties of this kind – so that everyone can move on to more productive activity. We should implement them unless there is an overwhelming argument for overriding them. There is not, in the present case. NoeticaTea? 02:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Support – and I presume Noetica didn't mean to say "against". Dicklyon (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks Dick. Fixed now; WP:MOS is unequivocally in favour of this hyphen. NoeticaTea? 07:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment. Thanks for the support. You all haven't heard of the billiard ball-computer? A digital camera hangs directly over the center of the pool table, and sends an image to a computer which analyzes the ball positions, recognizing the differences between solids, stripes and the 8-ball, and displays on a nearby flat-screen monitor its recommended shot with the best chance of sinking a ball. Kind of like the bowling lanes that point to where the bowler should aim to get the spare. I just made that up, hah! But wouldn't be surprised to see someone sell this to bar owners looking for a competitive advantage over the bar down the street. -Wbm1058 (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.