> I wonder if anyone has tried work with a theory of finite numbers: where
> BIGGEST+1=BIGGEST or BIGGEST+1=-BIGGEST as in some computers?
There is a group of faculty who address this problem directly in my
department. But any general-purpose computer can emulate true, unlimited
natural numbers (which is what people often do, rather than relying on
bounded ints). The only real limitations that make "computer" not-equal-to
"Turing machine" are memory and the limited patience of humans. This is one
reason why people spend more time researching P vs. NP than
artificially-imposed limits.
When you add bounds to numbers it requires additional proof obligations,
which makes it more difficult to prove things. And you can't directly prove
anything about numbers that exist outside the bounds under which you're
working.
Anna
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sat Jun 06 2009 - 13:42:01 PDT