Re: Turing machines, quantum computers, and alephs
From: Timothy Murphy (tim_at_birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie)
Date: 03/22/05
- Next message: flip: "Re: Surrogate factoring ideas to ponder"
- Previous message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Distinct linear orderings on Z"
- In reply to: Gerry Quinn: "Re: Turing machines, quantum computers, and alephs"
- Next in thread: Gerry Quinn: "Re: Turing machines, quantum computers, and alephs"
- Reply: Gerry Quinn: "Re: Turing machines, quantum computers, and alephs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 03:08:56 +0000
Gerry Quinn wrote:
> What you are getting at, of course, is the notion that the infinite tape
> of an ATM is somehow legitimate whereas the infinite number of qubits of
> a AQC is not.
It is not a question of "legitimacy"..
You are perfectly free to talk of machines with an infinity of q-bits
if you wish, though you should not call them quantum computers
because that term has been reserved for something else.
In the same way, it would be misleading to use the term "Turing machine"
for a machine with an infinite number of states.
To my mind, quantum computers and Turing machines (as usually understood)
belong to a completely different sphere of discussion
to the more general devices you were speaking of.
Technically, the former have finite algorithmic entropy
while the latter have infinite entropy.
-- Timothy Murphy e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366 s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
- Next message: flip: "Re: Surrogate factoring ideas to ponder"
- Previous message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Distinct linear orderings on Z"
- In reply to: Gerry Quinn: "Re: Turing machines, quantum computers, and alephs"
- Next in thread: Gerry Quinn: "Re: Turing machines, quantum computers, and alephs"
- Reply: Gerry Quinn: "Re: Turing machines, quantum computers, and alephs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|