> I feel like someone described useful properties of A Thing if it existed.
Then we figured out how to make A Thing that had those useful properties.
Apparently that's not quite the situation. I'd read the Wikipedia article. It says the following (keyword: "contrary"):
> Experimental evidence shows that redox-based resistance memory (ReRAM) includes a nanobattery effect that is contrary to Chua's memristor model. This indicates that the memristor theory needs to be extended or corrected to enable accurate ReRAM modeling.
From an academic standpoint, this is all interesting.
From a pragmatic standpoint, they made a thing. And it sounds like the theory they based it on is not as sound as they thought. But they MADE the thing.
I think I would have appreciated a title more like, "Memristor - the devices are cool, but the theory was flawed."
Rather than implying that the devices themselves are fictional.
Theory predicted A, practice made B. Nobody is contesting whether B was made or implying B is fictional. Everyone can see B exists. The debate is whether the claim that B = A is correct, i.e. whether A is fictional or whether A has been found or whether we should keep looking. If all you care about is the present then that's your prerogative, but the people making this stuff you use need to know when they need to stop vs. keep digging for you.
"Memristor – The fictional circuit element" implies B does not exist. It's a lousy title.
Perhaps "Memristor - An interesting device based on a flawed theory" would have been better.
The debate I'm having is whether the language used was inappropriate, i.e. whether the best words were used or if we should keep looking for better words. If all they care about is clicks then that's their prerogative, but the people reading these words need to know what they're supposed to mean.
Because "fictional" has a specific meaning, and this isn't it.
> "Memristor – The fictional circuit element" implies B does not exist. It's a lousy title.
No, it implies A does not exist, not B. Memristor = A. The term existed before HP's B came along.
Whether or not you believe A = B, somehow I think you're smart enough to realize that nobody is claiming B—which everyone can see with their own eyes—does not exist, and yet that's what you're still arguing.
Cool, so the top comment by a fellow HNer like yourself confused you, so you blamed your confusion on the author of the arXiv article.
That's your fault for ignoring the links [1] [2] [3] in that comment and reading 3 bullet points as 1 coherent sentence. Those are very obviously 3 different sentences from 3 entirely separate articles. If it's ambiguous for you what part of the passage from [1] the word "it" from passage [2] refers to (and feel free to blame the author of the comment if it makes you feel better), you're supposed to click on the links... that's why they were provided to you. They're there precisely to clear up any confusion or inconsistencies.
And if you click the links and search for "thermodynamic", you see it's explained pretty unambiguously, and the ambiguity was introduced in the top comment:
> There is some controversy over whether what Williams developed is actually a memristor because the concept of a memristor itself is seen by some as a violation of the laws of non-equilibrium thermodynamics.
Clearly you can see the "it" that some people claim to be violating thermodynamics (and hence fictional, unreal, or whatever you want to call it) is the concept of a memristor that has existed since decades ago, not the physical thing HP created long after -- that would be preposterous.
Apparently that's not quite the situation. I'd read the Wikipedia article. It says the following (keyword: "contrary"):
> Experimental evidence shows that redox-based resistance memory (ReRAM) includes a nanobattery effect that is contrary to Chua's memristor model. This indicates that the memristor theory needs to be extended or corrected to enable accurate ReRAM modeling.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor#Memristor_definition...