Timeline for Is a Turing Machine "by definition" the most powerful machine?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 5, 2016 at 11:02 | answer | added | Adam Gawne-Cain | timeline score: 4 | |
| Dec 5, 2016 at 3:55 | comment | added | David Schwartz | It seems that a human can appreciate that something is true because no algorithm can prove that it is true and this is what it claims, something that cannot be done by any algorithm. That anything solvable can be solved by an algorithm is an extraordinary claim. | |
| Dec 5, 2016 at 0:48 | answer | added | James Brock | timeline score: 7 | |
| Dec 4, 2016 at 15:36 | comment | added | Jason C | I would argue that the most powerful machine is a robotic arm that could take out the person who is trying to construct a Turing machine to solve a problem. Thus, problem solved, in a roundabout sort of way. | |
| Dec 4, 2016 at 7:38 | comment | added | Zsolt Szatmari | To give a practical example, in electronic music many producers favor using analog synthesisers, which are essentially a form of analog computer. Such producers argue that these can create sound via analog circuits that are unachievable ("uncomputable") via digital means. There are also many VA (virtual analog) synths out there, which are essentially Turing-based, but those provide an approximation which can be (depending on the producer's taste) inadequate. There may be analog computers used in other industries. One can then view a circuit diagram as a form of non-Turing computer language. | |
| Dec 2, 2016 at 12:41 | comment | added | Luaan | Turing machine isn't something that can solve all problems. It defines a minimal machine that can solve a class of problems we call "turing-computable". It defines that class of problems. Any machine that is a turing machine can solve all of those problems. It's kind of like "any language that compiles down to assembly can do anything that assembly can; now make an awesome language on those foundations!". Those are things that sound obvious in hindsight, but that is almost always so - human brains are great at pretending that the thing you already know is obvious :) | |
| Dec 2, 2016 at 9:10 | comment | added | Bakuriu | ... isn't what you are saying simply the Church-Turing thesis? As far as we know nobody disproved the thesis, but we cannot exclude the existence of a different model of computation that is "reasonable" (i.e. in some way implementable) and stronger than TMs. | |
| Dec 2, 2016 at 4:22 | answer | added | Bill Dubuque | timeline score: 19 | |
| Dec 1, 2016 at 18:24 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackCompSci/status/804390730567446528 | ||
| Dec 1, 2016 at 17:13 | comment | added | BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft | There are hundreds of different (Turing-complete) computer architectures out there, all with very different instruction sets. I don't think it's obvious at all that there is no problem that one can solve but another can't. | |
| S Dec 1, 2016 at 16:10 | history | edited | Yuval Filmus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Improve wording and grammar
|
| S Dec 1, 2016 at 16:10 | history | suggested | psmears | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Improve wording and grammar
|
| Dec 1, 2016 at 15:15 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Dec 1, 2016 at 16:10 | |||||
| Dec 1, 2016 at 10:11 | answer | added | gnasher729 | timeline score: -5 | |
| Dec 1, 2016 at 9:09 | answer | added | David Richerby | timeline score: 144 | |
| Dec 1, 2016 at 9:07 | answer | added | Andrej Bauer | timeline score: 71 | |
| Dec 1, 2016 at 5:59 | comment | added | Raphael | Your problem is that you think of TMs as something that came after. It was not. It was (and is) used to define the class of Turing-computable problems. Many equivalent models have been found, but that does not change the definition. | |
| Dec 1, 2016 at 5:58 | history | edited | Raphael |
edited tags
|
|
| Dec 1, 2016 at 5:58 | comment | added | Raphael | It's the most powerful machine we know how to build. Well, actually no, we can only build finite automata. | |
| Dec 1, 2016 at 4:24 | answer | added | André Souza Lemos | timeline score: 23 | |
| Dec 1, 2016 at 4:22 | comment | added | Eugene | Turning machine can't solve the halting problem. However, there is no proof there is no machine to solve it. The model is kind of TM with oracle, or completely dofferent approach. If you follow the Church thesis, TM just represents machines we are using nowadays. | |
| Dec 1, 2016 at 4:09 | history | edited | Sounak Bhattacharya | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Dec 1, 2016 at 3:41 | history | asked | Sounak Bhattacharya | CC BY-SA 3.0 |