Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?

From: Will Twentyman (wtwentyman_at_read.my.sig)
Date: 08/28/04 

Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 09:54:46 -0400

Peter Olcott wrote:

> "David C. Ullrich" <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message news:l8aui0p6bc23gha9gpkd1rr2nofgc83o2u@4ax.com...
>
>>On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:13:51 GMT, "Peter Olcott"
>><olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It would seem that a regular Turing Machine would be able
>>>to provide protected memory.
>>
>>it doesn't -matter- one bit. when it's been proved that
>>-no- tm has a certain property it follows that a tm
>>that provides protected memory doesn't either.
>>
>>[luckily it also doesn't matter exactly what you mean
>>by a tm providing protected memory...]
>>
>>
>>************************
>>
>>David C. Ullrich
>>
>>sorry about the inelegant formatting - typing
>>one-handed for a few weeks...
>
>
> I don't accept that this can be shown until it is shown
> for this specific case. Until then it is merely a possibly
> false assumption.

Peter, when something is shown for all cases, regardless of the
implementation, it is also shown for this case. You have to leave
standard TMs to get away from the proof working. Nothing, repeat
*nothing*, you can do in a regular, boring, run-of-the-mill TM will get
around the proof of the non-existence of a *standardly defined* Halt
Analyzer. 

-- 
Will Twentyman
email: wtwentyman at copper dot net

Relevant Pages