Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)
From: patty (pattyNO_at_SPAMicyberspace.net)
Date: 11/19/04
- Next message: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)"
- Previous message: Philip Barlowe: "Re: Is this math test too easy?"
- In reply to: tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)"
- Next in thread: tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)"
- Reply: tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:10:20 GMT
tchow@lsa.umich.edu wrote:
> In article <320e992a.0411190852.7ce02e6c@posting.google.com>,
>
>>I have had such a discussion with an extremely intelligent and
>>experienced mathematician. He told me that PCs are not Turing
>>Machines, because they have "an infinite tape". I think he did not
>>know anything about descriptive complexity. This infinite portion of
>>the tape consists entirely of blank symbols, and therefore has
>>descriptive complexity O(1), which is easily realized by a physical
>>system.
>
>
> I think you mean "descriptional complexity" or "Kolmogorov complexity";
> the term "descriptive complexity" nowadays is reserved for a different
> subject. But in any case, Kolmogorov complexity is irrelevant to the
> argument that PCs are not Turing machines. PCs do not have unbounded
> memory; they have a fixed finite memory, and hence can be modeled as
> finite-state automata. To build something that "is" a Turing machine in
> some defensible sense (as opposed to something that is *usefully modeled*
> or *approximated* by a Turing machine), one should at least build it so
> that it has no a priori memory bound, and continues eating up whatever
> resources are available in the universe as needed.
... which pretty much describes a PC connected to the Internet.
patty
- Next message: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)"
- Previous message: Philip Barlowe: "Re: Is this math test too easy?"
- In reply to: tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)"
- Next in thread: tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)"
- Reply: tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|