Sorry if you took offense, I am merely elaborating on what I said before -- perhaps we don't have to check every combination. Not simply a better algorithm, but a different approach to the hardware, solving problems in analog as if transistor-based computers are just one single problem we've solved.Yes, but that has got little to do with my initial statement, which was just addressing the plain ignorance of another post. You will agree that the content of that post bears little signs of intelligent beings, and then we can have a new discussion. It seems of me as if you want to disprove a point I never made, which is maybe possible, but not very fruitful. If you want, we can also move this discussion to the "discussion zone", as it seems that's a much more befitting environment.
By elder, I meant Moore's Law, not Moore. =)