Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Hello Marchal
>
> On 05-Sep-01, Marchal wrote:
>
> > Even if we are "more than" a universal computing machine, it is easy
> > to explain there is a sense in which we are *at least* universal
> > computing machines (even the kind which can know that(°)), and that is
> > enough for making the world possibly very complex.
>
> We are certainly *less* than universal turing machines - since a
> universal turing machine requires infinite storage to work with.
>
> Brent Meeker
The storage issue is completely bogus. UTMs require unbounded storage,
but only a finite amount of storage at any finite time in their
computation. A human being working with a pile of pebbles will die
before exhausting the world of its pebbles. Hence, homo sapiens, with
its extra-somatic storage devices can implement any possible Turing
machine, limited only by lifespan. I don't think the fact that humans
die whereas UTMs (being theoretical constructs) live forever is a
relevant fact in the definition of universal computation.
Cheers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
Room 2075, Red Centre
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wed Sep 05 2001 - 20:23:00 PDT