Re: Another Reason Why Collatz is Unprovable
- From: gwoegi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (GJ Woeginger)
- Date: 16 Jun 2006 08:35:58 GMT
Craig Feinstein <cafeinst@xxxxxxx> wrote:
#> GJ Woeginger wrote:
#> >
#> > This is NOT a proven mathematical statement from the literature,
#> > but just something that holds true in your Mable-Mildred-Feinstein
#> > model of computation.
#
# If you believe this, then you need to brush up on your complexity
# theory. See http://qwiki.caltech.edu/index.php/Zoo_Glossary
#
# "nonuniform: This means that a different algorithm can be used for each
# input size. Boolean circuits are a nonuniform model of computation --
# one might have a circuit for input instances of size 51, that looks
# completely different from the circuit for instances of size 50."
#
# It follows from the definition that non-uniform algorithms which don't
# take an infinite amount of space to code are basically the same thing
# as a uniform algorithm.
How does this follow from the definition?
--Gerhard
___________________________________________________________
Gerhard J. Woeginger http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/
.
- References:
- Re: Another Reason Why Collatz is Unprovable
- From: Craig Feinstein
- Re: Another Reason Why Collatz is Unprovable
- From: GJ Woeginger
- Re: Another Reason Why Collatz is Unprovable
- From: Craig Feinstein
- Re: Another Reason Why Collatz is Unprovable
- From: GJ Woeginger
- Re: Another Reason Why Collatz is Unprovable
- From: Craig Feinstein
- Re: Another Reason Why Collatz is Unprovable
- From: GJ Woeginger
- Re: Another Reason Why Collatz is Unprovable
- From: Craig Feinstein
- Re: Another Reason Why Collatz is Unprovable
- From: Craig Feinstein
- Re: Another Reason Why Collatz is Unprovable
- Prev by Date: Re: JSH: To Decker and Peters
- Next by Date: Re: Pls. help to count probabilities
- Previous by thread: Re: Another Reason Why Collatz is Unprovable
- Next by thread: Re: Another Reason Why Collatz is Unprovable
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|