Re: Smaller UTM than Rule110

From: Tim Tyler (tim_at_tt1lock.org)
Date: 01/10/05 

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:13:32 GMT

Mcintosh Harold V. <mcintosh@servidor.unam.mx> wrote or quoted:
> "Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote in message

> > If examining variations to show robustness, why are
> > variations in the number of head states and number
> > of tape states included - but variations in the number
> > of movement directions are not?
>
> But they are, although I would have to do some searching
> to find a reference to establish the point. But there
> really are Multidimensional Turing Machines, and they
> are equivalent to the canonical machine.

Do you consider every machine which is Turing-equivalent
to be a Turing machine?

If so, why does the term "Turing equivalent" exist?

Why don't all machines that can compute the same functions
as Turing machines get classified as *being* "Turing machines" -
rather than being merely "Turing equivalent". 

-- 
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim@tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Smaller UTM than Rule110
    ... >> variations in the number of head states and number ... >> of movement directions are not? ... why does the term "Turing equivalent" exist? ... as Turing machines get classified as *being* "Turing machines" - ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Smaller UTM than Rule110
    ... machines with Up/Down/Left/Right operations fail to qualify as ... Turing machines - according to most popular definitions. ... dimensional machine can do - but being "Turing equivalent" is ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Smaller UTM than Rule110
    ... machines with Up/Down/Left/Right operations fail to qualify as ... Turing machines - according to most popular definitions. ... dimensional machine can do - but being "Turing equivalent" is ...
    (comp.theory)
Loading