> Note that this particular property is more-or-less how our system
> cheats the
> halting problem, infinite loops, and similar. When you run an program
> instance that ends up in this state, the algorithms (in a generic sense)
> tend to rewrite themselves such that they jump to a conclusion and
> terminate. However, this is not so much a property of the
> algorithm but the
> nature of the universal computing machinery you are running it
> on. The very
> machinery itself is deeply probabilistic and non-axiomatic, so there is no
> guarantee that an algorithm will run in an expected manner every time
> ("expected" in the sense of the conventional model of universal
> computers --
> obviously I know this will happen). "Here be monsters..."
But you can't escape the halting problem on the lower level.
Using randomness you can escape the halting problem, in a sense. But, you
can't get true randomness in your virtual machine, only simulated
randomness. So you are not really escaping the halting problem, you're only
simulating escaping the halting problem, in a way that is indistinguishable
from escaping the halting problem based on observations with a certain
degree of coarseness...
> To put it another way, it is possible to write a universal virtual machine
> that runs on standard silicon that is not itself reducible to
> silicon using
> any existing electronics technology (though in theory it might be possible
> with, say, some molecular computer technology that doesn't exist yet).
>
>
> -James Rogers
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For sure, that is true.
Implementing Novamente in hardware given current technology would be, to
paraphrase the late Miles Davis, "harder than five thousand motherfuckers."
*Possible* but insanely difficult and silly to attempt.
ben
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
