Subject: tc-list Collations

From: Mike Bossingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 14:29:42 -0400

Hi Bob,

<While many databases can handle files that size, the thing
<is going to be slow and difficult to handle. I don't think
<we can afford to deal with all the extra data. Perhaps our
<paper collations should include all the data. But at this
<time we don't have the computing power to handle all the
<trivial variants.

True - but look back to look forward.

When I started in the computer industry I had 64kbyte RAM and a
4Mbyte hard disk on a machine that would have taken up my
study. And that was state of the art!!! 

Today I chuck around files larger than that when handling
snapshots in my family album.

I take an board what you say about limits, but we don't seem to be near
them at the moment.

In any case a filter can always build a new data-base with just the data
needed for your application - I could fit 10 such data-bases on my PC
and it's nowhere near state of the art.

Regards

Mike Bossingham

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 16:27:02 -0500

>study. And that was state of the art!!! 

Well -- if we want to look back, the first computer I ever
worked with had to be hardwire programmed. :-) It was
*not* state of the art -- but the first machine I worked with
that was had to be programmed via paper tape and had something
like 32K (K, not M) of RAM distributed among a dozen users....

There is no question that computers have advanced greatly.
But it's not really the point. One should never bet on
future hardware.

>snapshots in my family album.

:-)

>and it's nowhere near state of the art.

Space is not the problem. Somehow or other, we can find space for the
data. But the problem is processing, not space. I'm probably fairly
unusual among people on this list in that I have actually myself written
code to do manuscript comparison. And it isn't bad code; I have
programming training. So I have a fair idea of what can be done
with current compilers. (And custom code *will* be faster than
databases, in this instance where the data is unindexed.)

At this point, we do not have the processing power to evaluate all
the data. My gut feeling is that we need to increase processing
power by about three (binary) orders of magnitude to reach that point.
I don't think that is going to happen. Once again, we are reaching
the limits of present IC technology.

Now I'll admit that the experts have twice thought we had reached
that limit, and twice been proved wrong, as new methods have been
invented to etch smaller and smaller patterns on wafers. But there
is an absolute limit on how small a transistor can be -- it has
to be big enough to move at least one electron. :-) Now we're
nowhere near that -- but I don't trust any technology that small
anyway.

It *may* be that we will someday develop the technology to deal
with this data effectively. But I wouldn't guarantee it. And the
thing to remember is that we don't have enough workers in this
field as it is. Shall we waste time and energy collating variants
we don't intend to use? Strikes me as thoroughly wasteful.

But I'm just me. I leave the last word to others. :-)

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: "Dave Washburn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 14:56:10 -0700

> we don't intend to use? Strikes me as thoroughly wasteful.

This is the part I'm not so sure about.  We call them "trivial 
variants" now; who's to say they can't be useful for something, 
perhaps a database that can compare patterns of itacisms, spelling 
variations, nu-moveable, etc. could be used to refine stemmatic 
patterns or some such.  I understand and appreciate what you're 
saying, but I'm not totally convinced that any variant is truly 
"trivial" unless it's a coffee stain or something :-)
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
When in doubt, go for chocolate.  Life is too short
not to.

---

From: "DC PARKER" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:54:44 GMT

Dear Mike

Glad to see you in the fray.

Do you still have that CD I'm reviewing?  They're getting restive and 
wanting my review!

David

DR DC PARKER
READER IN NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND PALAEOGRAPHY
DEPT OF THEOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
TEL. 0121-414 3613
FAX  0121-414 6866
E-MAIL [email-masked]