tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-441071406174557701.post2837121740123320052..comments2024-03-30T04:44:04.560-07:00Comments on Abstractioneer by John Panzer: Office SpaceJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11529069857081314814noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-441071406174557701.post-31418003008896814592004-07-08T11:19:00.000-07:002004-07-08T11:19:00.000-07:00I think it is possible to fit a well defined mathe...I think it is possible to fit a well defined mathemtical function to this data. In the degenerate case, squeezing a programmer into a black hole, whose effective volume (modulo the event horizon) we can define as 0, will indeed reduce productivity to 0. In this context productivity can be defined as work. Energy output as measured by Hawking anti-particles, originating from the programmer inside the horizon, evaporating at the event horzion, is on the order of 10**-32 eV. So the lower bound is well defined. At the upper bound, puting a programmer into an infinite space may not result in infinite productivity, though as anyone who lives in Silicon Valley knows, with the cost of housing and office space being what it is, the cost of even a finite amount of space rapidly approaches infinity, so its safe to say that a programmer with an infinite amount of space is either god or works for god, so by definition productivity is infinite. However, for the set of non-theistic solutions in bounded space-time, we can postulate that productivity is asymptotic to some upper limit P for an area A as A approaches an upper bound A(max). Quantum degeneracy pressure means that no two programmers can occupy the same energy level within a radius R where R = R(P,A,v($)) where v($) is the cost vector per hour expressed as a Greenspan eigenvalue. It is then a simple matter to deduce that if <br> A >= 3000 sq. ft. and |v($)| >= $840 per hour<br>then P == P(max).maxcjblochnoreply@blogger.com