On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 11:05:15AM -0500, Pei Wang wrote: > another related topic: the final state. In my paper I said that my system is > not a TM, also because it doesn't have a set of predetermined final states
A system using S and K combinators isn't a TM at all; totally different mechanism of computation. But S and K can emutate a UTM, and a UTM can emulate S and K. So they're equivalent for computability theory, and probably for modern complexity theory. For real efficiency analysis they all suck. :) > efficiently. Instead, it means that the system's behavior cannot be > predicted from the current problem alone. Only because the "system" isn't the same system that met the last instance of the same problem. > where the system report a final answer and stop. Instead, my system reports > the best answers it finds so far, and continue to looking for better Sounds like an enumerator, a standard slight modification of the pure TM. -xx- Damien X-) ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
