2012/9/11 benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com> > > > Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: > > > > 2012/9/10 benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com> > > > >> > >> > >> > > No program can determine its hardware. This is a consequence of the > >> > > Church > >> > > Turing thesis. The particular machine at the lowest level has no > >> > bearing > >> > > (from the program's perspective). > >> > If that is true, we can show that CT must be false, because we *can* > >> > define > >> > a "meta-program" that has access to (part of) its own hardware (which > >> > still > >> > is intuitively computable - we can even implement it on a computer). > >> > > >> > >> It's false, the program *can't* know that the hardware it has access to > >> is > >> the *real* hardware and not a simulated hardware. The program has only > >> access to hardware through IO, and it can't tell (as never ever) from > >> that > >> interface if what's outside is the *real* outside or simulated outside. > >> <\quote> > >> Yes that is true. If anything it is true because the hardware is not > even > >> clearly determined at the base level (quantum uncertainty). > >> I should have expressed myself more accurately and written " "hardware" > " > >> or > >> "relative 'hardware'". We can define a (meta-)programs that have access > >> to > >> their "hardware" in the sense of knowing what they are running on > >> relative > >> to some notion of "hardware". They cannot be emulated using universal > >> turing > >> machines > > > > > > Then it's not a program if it can't run on a universal turing machine. > > > The funny thing is, it *can* run on a universal turing machine. Just that > it > may lose relative correctness if we do that.
Then you must be wrong... I don't understand your point. If it's a program it has access to the "outside" through IO, hence it is impossible for a program to differentiate "real" outside from simulated outside... It's a simple fact, so either you're wrong or what you're describing is not a program, not an algorithm and not a computation. Quentin > We can still use a turing > machine to "run" it and interpret what the result means. > > So for all intents and purposes it is quite like a program. Maybe not a > program as such, OK, but it certainly can be used precisely in a > step-by-step manner, and I think this is what CT thesis means by > algorithmically computable. > Maybe not, but in this case CT is just a statement about specific forms of > algorithms. > > -- > View this message in context: > http://old.nabble.com/Why-the-Church-Turing-thesis--tp34348236p34417440.html > Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
