Re: turing machine...who cares?

[z007400b@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us (Ralph Silverman)]

Patrick Juola (patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
: In article <4m2hri$mad@nntp.seflin.lib.fl.us> z007400b@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us (Ralph Silverman) writes:
: 	right now i program on an antiquated COMPAQ model 2551 286 12 .
: 	even regarding this,  now, modest capability system...
: 	there never has been a turing machine made
: 		"...equivalent in computational abilities..." to it.

: You're half right.  Formally, a Turing machine has infinite memory, which 
: precludes its being physically made.  Informally, any program that runs
: on your '286 will run w/o modification on a "Random Access Machine", which
: can be mechanistically converted into a TM program.  See Hopcroft and Ullman
: for details.

: 	Patrick

--
*************begin r.s. response**************

	turing's machine
	is an abstraction of computer systems
	that predates the computer systems
	we have...
	and actually,
		resembles them little!
	why embrace this antiquated and
		peculiar
	abstraction now?

	for example...
	normally,
		actual computers
	are routinely expected to support
		generalized arithmetic division operations.
	there is reason to believe that no
	algorithym for this on turing's machine
	has been published and proven valid!!!
	a period of time
		>50 years
	has passed since turing's paper published...
	is it not getting a little late?
	and
	is there any responsible opinion that
		turing's machine
	is a effective basis for the study of
		algorithyms
	now
	???	

*************end r.s. response****************
Ralph Silverman
z007400b@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us




--

Ralph Silverman
z007400b@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us