Re: 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: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 12:16:29 +0000 (UTC)

"Simon G Best" <s.g.best@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:4127E157.4040601@btopenworld.com...
| >parr(*> wrote:
| >
| > 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.
|
| What, exactly, do you mean by "asynchronous inputs"? Do you just
mean
| things like 'interactive' inputs? Or do you mean something which a
| clocked state-machine would not be able to "handle"?

Just inputs the time of presentation of which to the computer's input
interface can't be controlled by the computer. Examples: your next
keystroke; clock ticks. In other words, the first of your
suggestions.

(I suppose this will spark a debate on whether clock ticks are to be
considered asynchronous :-) 

--
)>==ss$$%PARR(º>   Parr

Relevant Pages
Loading