> On 21 Apr 2018, at 10:10, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote: > > On 20 April 2018 at 19:04, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I never got past the first line of Bruno’s post because he said: >> >> "Consider any Turing universal machinery, for example the programming >> language c++” >> >> C++ is Turing complete but is not a Turing machine because machines are >> physical objects made of atoms but C++ is not nor is any language. As for >> Löbian machines that is yet another term that Bruno made up and is seen on >> this list but nowhere else. > > You sound like one of the peer-reviewers who rejected Turing's paper. > It's almost uncanny. He said: > > "This is a bizarre paper. It begins by defining a computing device > absolutely unlike anything I have seen, then proceeds to show—I > haven't quite followed the needlessly complicated formalism [...]" > > In his defense, at least he understood that it was meant to be a > formalism, and not the plans to build an actual device. > >> And Turing explained exactly precisely how to >> make one of his machines in the real physical world > > Nope. Turing machines have infinite tapes.
Better to put it in the environment. When you implement/incarnate a universal machine/number, to install a finite code in a finite machine, and it is important for it to be finite or RE to be able to be arithmetised. Of course, the universal machine when incarnated will either complain of lack of memory, or use the wall of the cave to pursue the computation! But the universal (Lôbian) machine is finite (or RE). > They cannot possibly be > created in the physical world. They were proposed by Turing as an > *abstract* model of computation, Inspired by the human computer. The physical computations are only physical implementation of them. (If we except Babbage's dream). > and he was upfront about it. Turing > created this model to answer theoretical questions, not to propose > some device. C++ is itself an abstract model and it is Turing > universal, but it does not make sense to say that my physical computer > is Turing universal because it does not have infinite memory, nor > could it. > You fundamentally miss the point of theoretical computer > science. Yes. Clark missed it, but here with due respect, you miss the fact that a finite physical computer is an exact complete incarnation of a universal FINITE number. It is important, as if it was infinite, we would not have a finite Gödel number implementing “[]” in arithmetic, and no arithmetization. Keep Wolfram’s challenge (some years ago) in mind; to find the smallest universal Turing machine, i.e. the smallest (finite!) set u of quadruplets, which makes the machine u computing ph_i(x) for all is and x given as an input. My general definition of universal number is only, when given a universal machinery, that is a computable enumeration of all partial recursive functions phi_0, phi_1, phi_2 …, u is a universal machine if u is such that phI_u(x, y) = phi_x(y). u is a precise number, mimicking the Turing machine x on the input y. It is a FINITE set of quadruplets mimicking any set of quadruplets in, say, the enumeration of set of quadruplet. The infinite tape is only an help for the intuition. It plays the role of the diary in which a human computer keeps track of its intermediate result. It is the “memory space”, and it is usually locally finite, but not part of the interpreter code, which is the universal numbers/machine (that the doctor will put on an hard disk). > >> but Bruno has no idea >> how to even start to build one of his machines, which means he doesn’t >> understand how it works > > Let us know where we can get our hand on some infinite capacity hard > drives. I'm sick of paying through the nose for backups. > >> or even exactly what it is he’s talking about. > > You're a bully. Yes, Clark is a bully, and it just pursue the work of bullies which aggravate their case to hide the bullying. Like in Brussels, the bullies continue the bullies to hide the bullying. None of those people have ver study the work, nor even accept to talk with me, even just in private. They have never read the work, and that is what they try to hide. But there is no problem with genuine scientists, even if sometimes they get some metaphysical vertigo, which is normal in this dogmatic Aristotelian era concerning the fundamental science. But even this is only a pretext to hide the bullies, which in Brussels has preceded my thesis for long. The thesis is more the result of the bullying than its cause. Bruno > > Telmo. > >> >> >> John K Clark >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
