I haven't thought this one all the way through, and it certainly wouldn't
be cheap,but if you want a theoretical system with no "designed-in"
unfairness,why wouldn't this work:

Have a central clock generator which feeds a clock to each person's button
box,using lengths of cable with exactly the same velocity factor and
length. Each box has a circuit in it which counts the clock ticks received
from the clock,until the button is pressed. Then after a period of time,
when the system could be sure that at least one button was pressed (you
could use one of the already mentioned "unfair" systems to determine
this),the current clock tick values are read out of each box,and whichever
has the smallest number of ticks was the person who pressed the button first.

If you find that you are sometimes getting "simultaneous" button pushes,
then just increase the clock rate. I don't think there is any way this
system can get into a metastable state.

Again,it is way overkill for a human-operated button system,but I am just
trying to offer a possible solution,because I don't see why this problem
should be theoretically un-solvable.

Sean


At 05:41 PM 7/16/99 -0400, you wrote:
>> R. Martin wrote:
>>
>> > I didn't totaly follow the argument at the time it was of the nature
>> > of a law of physics or mathemetics (or death and taxes). It was
>> > calculated that the memory systems would lock up about once every
>> > ten years. Nobody confirmed this experimentaly.

|
| Sean Breheny
| Amateur Radio Callsign: KA3YXM
| Electrical Engineering Student
\--------------=----------------
Save lives, please look at http://www.all.org
Personal page: http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/shb7
mailto:shb7@cornell.edu ICQ #: 3329174
________________________________________________________
NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet.  Shouldn't you?
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html