Re: Prize Announced for Determining the Boundaries of Turing Machine Computation

On May 16, 2:25 pm, Wolfram Research <newsd...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Wolfram Research and Stephen Wolfram are pleased to announce the
Wolfram 2,3 Turing Machine Research Prize in celebration of the
fifth anniversary of Stephen Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science."

A $25,000 prize is offered to the first person or group to prove
(or disprove) that a particular Turing machine can act as a
universal computer. The purpose of the prize is to encourage
research that will help fill in foundational questions associated
with the structure of the computational universe. The invitation
to participate, and eligibility to win the prize, is extended to
everyone.

The prize is being adjudicated by a distinguished committee
consisting of Lenore Blum, Greg Chaitin, Martin Davis, Ron
Graham, Yuri Matiyasevich, Marvin Minsky, Dana Scott, and Stephen
Wolfram.

Further details are available at:http://www.wolframprize.org

A conversation machine was to be the basic Turing machine.

It was created to state the appearance of all knowledge as the
dilemma.

A machine with a state either related of unrelated to the next was
this class. A number is devised to cause state alteration in apparent
independent states.

A proof is there for always the same as a major challange in
mathematics. How to prove the serial number?

An exact serail number of apparent unrepeatability must be analysed
and reported.

A self reporting is the best procedure. If a state repeats or halt
then machine is not, Wolfram's defined Turing machine.

A simple state machine simulator and a second machine to repeat test,
can prove.

I do not know where Wolfram got his definition, but it is all either
series or not. And the form of knowledge was removed from the old
school Turing machine mistakenly. Mere seqence state independence
tests validly.

ANd the judge's will either allow or contest the claim.

Can I just run a repeat test simulator. The game of life was
trivially repeating, btw. Appearance of elemental automania is ALWAYS
a relational effect. Find a relation and watch its effect.

A choice of number in relation to this series is always either the
same. Repetative or not for ALL relations either cause again or not.
A number when chosen this carefully may be elemental, but only as
idnetification, not existence wise of automania related.

So the exact rule was clear to allow only a certain group of
mathematicians to enter the debate. Apriori agreement was the cooked
rule book?

.

Relevant Pages