Re: Smaller UTM than Rule110
From: Tim Tyler (tim_at_tt1lock.org)
Date: 01/10/05
- Next message: Acme Diagnostics: "Re: A Guide for the Perplexed?"
- Previous message: ken quirici: "Re: just 5 quick answers then I can summarise and GO"
- In reply to: Mcintosh Harold V.: "Re: Smaller UTM than Rule110"
- Next in thread: tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu: "Re: Smaller UTM than Rule110"
- Reply: tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu: "Re: Smaller UTM than Rule110"
- Reply: Mcintosh Harold V.: "Re: Smaller UTM than Rule110"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:13:32 GMT
Mcintosh Harold V. <mcintosh@servidor.unam.mx> wrote or quoted:
> "Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote in message
> > If examining variations to show robustness, why are
> > variations in the number of head states and number
> > of tape states included - but variations in the number
> > of movement directions are not?
>
> But they are, although I would have to do some searching
> to find a reference to establish the point. But there
> really are Multidimensional Turing Machines, and they
> are equivalent to the canonical machine.
Do you consider every machine which is Turing-equivalent
to be a Turing machine?
If so, why does the term "Turing equivalent" exist?
Why don't all machines that can compute the same functions
as Turing machines get classified as *being* "Turing machines" -
rather than being merely "Turing equivalent".
-- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
- Next message: Acme Diagnostics: "Re: A Guide for the Perplexed?"
- Previous message: ken quirici: "Re: just 5 quick answers then I can summarise and GO"
- In reply to: Mcintosh Harold V.: "Re: Smaller UTM than Rule110"
- Next in thread: tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu: "Re: Smaller UTM than Rule110"
- Reply: tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu: "Re: Smaller UTM than Rule110"
- Reply: Mcintosh Harold V.: "Re: Smaller UTM than Rule110"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
