Re: Smaller UTM than Rule110
From: Tim Tyler (tim_at_tt1lock.org)
Date: 01/04/05
- Next message: Tim Tyler: "Re: Smaller UTM than Rule110"
- Previous message: Acme Diagnostics: "Re: Stupid question"
- In reply to: Rick Decker: "Re: Smaller UTM than Rule110"
- Next in thread: Rick Decker: "Re: Smaller UTM than Rule110"
- Reply: Rick Decker: "Re: Smaller UTM than Rule110"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 20:49:39 GMT
Rick Decker <rdecker@hamilton.edu> wrote or quoted:
> Tim Tyler wrote:
> > I, Tim Tyler <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote or quoted:
> >>Since one of the main points of a Turing machine is that it
> >>is an abstract model of serial computation, such unnecessary
> >>and superfluous features seem rather undesirable.
> >
> > Another problem I see with Turing machines as an abstract model
> > of serial computation is that they are *defined* as only having
> > "back" and "forward" states.
> >
> > What's with that?
> >
> > It causes most two-dimensional serial digital machines to fail to
> > qualify as a Turing machines :-(
>
> No it doesn't. The inclusion of a two-dimensional "tape" along
> with forward/back/up/down moves of the head gives you a machine
> that is equivalent to a vanilla TM. Many intro theory texts
> contain proofs of this.
AFAICS, machines with Up/Down/Left/Right operations fail to qualify as
Turing machines - according to most popular definitions.
In particular, they fail according to definitions on the previously-cited
pages:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-machine/
...and...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine
Of course a 2D machine can do all the same computations a one
dimensional machine can do - but being "Turing equivalent" is
not the same as being a "Turing machine".
-- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
- Next message: Tim Tyler: "Re: Smaller UTM than Rule110"
- Previous message: Acme Diagnostics: "Re: Stupid question"
- In reply to: Rick Decker: "Re: Smaller UTM than Rule110"
- Next in thread: Rick Decker: "Re: Smaller UTM than Rule110"
- Reply: Rick Decker: "Re: Smaller UTM than Rule110"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|