Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?
From: Will Twentyman (wtwentyman_at_read.my.sig)
Date: 12/03/04
- Next message: Richard Tobin: "Re: two lines - finding point"
- Previous message: E. Escultura: "Re: Escultura affair: publication scandal"
- In reply to: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?"
- Next in thread: stephen_at_nomail.com: "Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?"
- Reply: stephen_at_nomail.com: "Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?"
- Reply: briggs_at_encompasserve.org: "Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?"
- Reply: Stephen Harris: "Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 10:42:20 -0500
Eray Ozkural exa wrote:
> "Mark Nudelman" <markn@greenwoodsoftware.com> wrote in message news:<BCKrd.600129$mD.87873@attbi_s02>...
>
>>Eray Ozkural exa wrote:
>>
>>>examachine@gmail.com (Eray Ozkural exa) wrote in message
>>>news:<320e992a.0412011208.2b75bc@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>>>I wonder what people really think about this.
>>>>
>>>>Are PCs physical examples to Turing Machines? [*]
>>>>
>>>>Please write only Yes/No to avoid discussion.
>>>
>>>A clarification is in order.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>We usually consider equivalence in computability to be a sufficient
>>>condition for being a physical example to a model of computation,
>>>essentially covering the capabilities of "causal mechanism" involved.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>It may be regarded sufficient that we can find a TM counterpart to
>>>everything essential to computation in a PC, and the other way around.
>>
>>Still "no".
>>
>>A TM can perform a calculation that requires 10^1000 storage cells, but no
>>PC or any other physical computer could do that.
>
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> There is another reading comprehension problem involved. Wearing the
> philosopher hat, I think I should have made this one clear as well:
>
> I do not ask the following:
>
> Is the set of all PCs computationally equivalent to the set of all TMs
> (whatever that means)
>
> I ask:
> Given a PC. Is it computationally equivalent to *a* Turing Machine?
No. Any TM can accept arbitrarily large input. A PC cannot.
> That's a completely different question. I suggest you to consider the
> latter reading, which is the correct reading.
That is not even close to how I read the original question.
-- Will Twentyman email: wtwentyman at copper dot net
- Next message: Richard Tobin: "Re: two lines - finding point"
- Previous message: E. Escultura: "Re: Escultura affair: publication scandal"
- In reply to: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?"
- Next in thread: stephen_at_nomail.com: "Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?"
- Reply: stephen_at_nomail.com: "Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?"
- Reply: briggs_at_encompasserve.org: "Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?"
- Reply: Stephen Harris: "Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
