I enjoyed this look at the memristor. Coming at the question from first principles is one that works for me. I've saved it in my notebook for forward to folks who go on and on about how revolutionary they are.
Like iPhone: it is not "fundamental" in any sense, but one can really see the difference "before and after."
The mobile phones existed before, but the way people use them hugely changed.
Another problem is that we read for years how memristors will be revolutionary, but then just some time passes and we read it again... I haven't researched the background to that, maybe somebody here has some insider info?
Capacitors relate charge to voltage. q = Cv
Resistors relate voltage to current. v = Ri
Inductors relate current to flux. theta = Li
Before memristors, nothing related charge to flux. theta = Mq
(also, voltage is the derivative of flux over time, and current is the derivative of charge over time, which makes a nice symmetry that memristors complete)
(skimmed the article briefly, seems like they're arguing that memristors are not fundamental because hysteresis is a non-linear relationship? Can I get a TL;DR HN?)
It's a fair point I'd say, and they're clear that this isn't something that diminishes utility of any practical device. Just that it isn't fundamental. This seems clear if you define fundamental things as not requiring history or energy to be defined. If you don't define it that way I'm sure you can come to a different conclusion.
capacitors: charge to (flux/time)'
resistors: (charge/time)' to (flux/time)'
inductors: (charge/time)' to flux
memristors: charge to flux
It's every combination of charge or the derivative of charge over time with flux or the derivative of flux over time.
cap - res f/t
| | chg c/t
mem - ind flx
(Not my area of knowledge; have no real clue. Hoping someone comes along and explains further.)
1/C * q = v (Capacitors relate charge to voltage)
R * q' = v (Resistors relate the rate of charge to voltage)
L * q" = v (Inductors relate the rate of rate of charge to voltage)
There's no room in this view for the memristor
I answered to the following (one level above): "I've saved it in my notebook for forward to folks who go on and on about how revolutionary they are."
My claim is that iPhone was "revolutionary" even if "it is not 'fundamental' in any sense."
Moreover, just "a passive circuit element" that you used is surely way too simple to be used to describe a memristor:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor
Also:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7319
The way I read it, a resistor is still the only "real" passive circuit element.
My view of a "memristor" was always more as a "marketing name." As here:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328535-200-online-s...
Which doesn't mean something marketed as them won't be useful. But, as I've also said, up to now, year after year the announcements happened, the time passed... Still, I know nobody would care "if it's fundamental or not" if it would allow us to do the things we couldn't before.