That's not enough to make it an array machine, any more than Table lookup made the 650 an array machine.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [[email protected]] on behalf of Robin Vowels [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 10:42 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: When did logical instructions appear? On 2022-06-17 23:31, Seymour J Metz wrote: > Whoosh! How is a statement about 2's complement machines relevant to a > statement about 1s' complement machines? You mean that you don't know? > Your statements about array machines were utter nonsense, not facts. > Are you confusing array machines with serial machines? > > Either you were using words whose meanings you don't know, e.g., > array, or you were making ludicrous assumptions. Whatever you may have > meant to write, The Pilot ACE, DEUCE, and ACE were *NOT* array > machines. Oh? The instruction 11-25 executed for 1024 microseconds added the 32 words in Delay Line 11 to the content of the accumulator. Similarly, the instruction 10-26 for 1024 microseconds subtracted the 32 words in Delay Line 10 from the contents of the accumulator. > ________________________________________ > From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [[email protected]] > on behalf of Robin Vowels [[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 5:57 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: When did logical instructions appear? > > On 2022-06-17 19:02, Seymour J Metz wrote: >> I'm not aware of any serial 1s' complement or 2's complement machines. > > In this forum, just a few letters ago, I stated that Pilot ACE, > DEUCE, and ACE were serial machines that held negative values in > twos complement form. > >> You've made claims; > > They weren't "claims". They are statements of facts. > >> that doesn't mean that they are true. There is >> nothing that precludes any representation in an array machine. > > Don't talk nonsense. > These are statements of facts from my knowledge of how > those serial machines worked. > >> You are >> begging the questions by the assumptions that you are making. > > I made no assumptions. > On the other hand, your assertions are nonsense. > >> ________________________________________ >> From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [[email protected]] >> on behalf of Robin Vowels [[email protected]] >> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 4:54 AM >> To: [email protected] >> >> On 2022-06-17 18:04, Seymour J Metz wrote: >>> FSVO serial. The early electronic machines that I'm aware of were >>> parallel. >>> >>> FWIW, there were papers claiming that 1s' complement was simpler. >> >> Not in a serial machine. >> What's more, I've already pointed out that in an array machine, >> ones complement was impossible because you only got one look >> at the operands and the result. The result had to be stored >> in the same cycle as the operands were available, because the >> next cycle the sum or difference of the next operands was required >> to be performed. In a serial machine, the sum of a pair of >> corresponding bits produces at the same moment the sum bit. >> >>> I >>> believe that the tradeoffs vary depending on the technology used.
