22 Nov
2003
22 Nov
'03
4:07 a.m.
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, William R. Buckley wrote:
I did not contradict myself. I admit fully that the ideal TM has
infinite memory. I also note that typical, contemporary computers are
not exactly a TM. Yet, they are computationally equivalent, and if you
do not understand that point, then you do not understand the foundations
of computer science.
Yes, you are, since you first asserted that all computers are Turning
Machines.
First of all, a Turing "Machine" is conceptually just a program itself,
and if one looks at it that way then it is really just an algorithm.
Computers are capable of implementing a "Turning Machine", and Turing
Machines are capable of approximating what today we call a computer, but
to say all computers are just Turing Machines is disingenuous and
intellectually dishonest.
"Now we finally know what a computer is. Those
expensive boxes of
electronics sold as computers are only approximations to the real McCoy.
For one thing, they almost never come with an infinite memory
like a true
TM."
William, you are completely contradicting yourself at this point. You
started out asserting that all computers are Turning machines, then you
quoted the source above which is saying that they really aren't, and
implying exactly what Tony Duell said a few messages ago, which is that
they aren't because they don't have infinite memory.
Also, you must like the verbage, as you seem compelled
to comment.
I am compelled to comment because the verbage is lame.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]