Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?
From: Fabian Mueller (fabim_at_web.de)
Date: 12/17/04
- Next message: >parr\(*>: "Re: [OT] (was): Robust Algorithms"
- Previous message: Stephen Harris: "Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?"
- In reply to: Eray Ozkural exa: "Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?"
- Next in thread: |-|erc: "Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?"
- Reply: |-|erc: "Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:25:28 +0100
Hi!
> Are PCs physical examples to Turing Machines? [*]
>
> Please write only Yes/No to avoid discussion.
As you can see, answering only 'yes' or 'no' does not avoid discussions ;-)
So I'll answer a little more:
PCs are not physical examples to TMs. A TM has one (or more) infinite
band on which it is able to write and read. This would mean a PC should
have infinite memory.
Another difference is, that a PC can write/read a bigger number of bits
(normaly 32) per cycle. I know that this argument does not count much,
because using a kind of compression (new alphabet) on a TM would give
the TM the same power.
But following this, PCs are more a physical example to the so called
RAMs (random access machines). To enjoy with care, because those are
able to add/operate arbitrarily long words in one cycle. The theoretical
model of the function RAMs is much more like the function of PCs than
the function of TMs is.
Fabian
- Next message: >parr\(*>: "Re: [OT] (was): Robust Algorithms"
- Previous message: Stephen Harris: "Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?"
- In reply to: Eray Ozkural exa: "Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?"
- Next in thread: |-|erc: "Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?"
- Reply: |-|erc: "Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
