Troll-debility sets in [was: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?]

From: >parr\(*> (LauryKing_at_BTInternetnospam.com)
Date: 08/22/04 

Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:06:58 +0000 (UTC)

"Dave Vandervies" <dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:cg5ng8$5v2$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
| In article <d21rh0lc2ed6m1d768422ftvcalo6vkh1j@4ax.com>,
| Martin Shobe <mshobe@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
|
| >I'm going to regret this but.... There are things that can solve
the
| >halting problem for TM's. They just have to be *more* powerful
than a
| >TM.
|
| Show us one.

Peter's reply to you shows that he's getting tired of his trolling.
Nevertheless, he's missed a point which might have helped him to
continue trolling for a while more.

I reckon that there are real computers out there working today which
are not equivalent to TM machines as Turing defined them. Indeed, a
TM cannot replicate their action and so, it may be argued, they are
more powerful than a TM.

Any computer which has multiple parallel processes, such as is needed
to handle asynchronous inputs, cannot, as far as I can work out, be
replicated on a Turing Machine. Aguably, such machines are more
powerful than TMs. Not that this will change Turing's conclusion on
computability, nor lead to a successful halt detector.

It could be that since Turing, work has been done to define a
Turing-like Machine which handles asynchronous inputs, and can
therefore be analysed mathematically. If there is, I'm sure someone
will let me know and I can eat humble pie. 

--
)>==ss$$%PARR(º>   Parr

Relevant Pages
Loading