On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:47 PM, benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>wrote:

> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM, benjayk
> > <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an universal
> >> turing
> >> machine can compute everything that is intuitively computable, has near
> >> universal acceptance among computer scientists.
> >>
> >> I really wonder why this is so, given that there are simple cases where
> >> we
> >> can compute something that an abitrary turing machine can not compute
> >> using
> >> a notion of computation that is not extraordinary at all (and quite
> >> relevant
> >> in reality).
> >> For example, given you have a universal turing machine A that uses the
> >> alphabet {1,0} and a universal turing machine B that uses the alphabet
> >> {-1,0,1}.
> >> Now it is quite clear that the machine A cannot directly answer any
> >> questions that relates to -1.

I see this at all being the case at all.  What is the symbol for -1
supposed to look like?  Do you agree that a turing machine that used A, B,
and C as symbols could work the same as one that used -1, 0, and 1?
Everything is a representation, but what is important is that the Turing
machine preserves the relationships.  E.g., if ABBBABAA is greater than
AAABBAAB then 01110100 is greater than 00011001, and all the other
properties can hold, irrespective of what symbols are used.

> For example it cannot directly compute
> >> -1*-1=1. Machine A can only be used to use an encoded input value and
> >> encoded description of machine B, and give an output that is correct
> >> given
> >> the right decoding scheme.
> >>
> >
> > 1's or 0's, X's or O's, what the symbols are don't have any bearing on
> > what
> > they can compute.
> >
> That's just an assertion of the belief I am trying to question here.
> In reality, it *does* matter which symbols/things we use to compute. A
> computer that only uses one symbol (for example a computer that adds using
> marbles) would be pretty useless.
> It does matter in many different ways: Speed of computations, effciency of
> computation, amount of memory, efficiency of memory, ease of programming,
> size of programs, ease of interpreting the result, amount of layers of
> programming to interpret the result and to program efficiently, ease of
> introspecting into the state of a computer...

Practically they might matter but not theoretically.

> Why would we abstract from all that and then reduce computation to our one
> very abstract and imcomplete model of computation?
> If we do this we could as well abstract from the process of computation and
> say every string can be used to emulate any machine, because if you know
> what program it expresses, you know what it would compute (if correctly
> interpreted). There's no fundamental difference. Strings need to be
> interpreted to make sense as a program, and a turing machine without
> negative numbers needs to be interpreted to make sense as a program
> computing the result of an equation using negative numbers.

I agree, strings need to be interpreted.  This is what the Turing machine
does.  The symbols on the tape become interrelated in the context of the
machine that interprets the symbols and it is these relations that become

> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >
> > Consider: No physical computer today uses 1's or 0's, they use voltages,
> > collections of more or fewer electrons.
> OK, but in this case abstraction makes sense for computer scientist because
> progamers don't have access to that level. You are right, though that a
> chip
> engineer shouldn't abstract from that level if he actually wants to build a
> computer.
> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >
> > This doesn't mean that our computers can only directly compute what
> > electrons do.
> In fact they do much more.  Electrons express strictly more than just 0 and
> 1. So it's not a good anology, because 0 and 1 express *less* than 0, 1 and
> -1.
> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >
> > But for me this already makes clear that machine A is less
> computationally
> >> powerful than machine B. Its input and output when emulating B do only
> >> make
> >> sense with respect to what the machine B does if we already know what
> >> machine B does, and if it is known how we chose to reflect this in the
> >> input
> >> of machine A (and the interpretation of its output). Otherwise we have
> no
> >> way of even saying whether it emulates something, or whether it is just
> >> doing a particular computation on the alphabet {1,0}.
> >>
> >
> > These are rather convincing:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_console_emulator
> >
> > There is software that emulates the unique architectures of an Atari,
> > Nintendo, Supernintendo, PlayStation, etc. systems.  These emulators can
> > also run on any computer, whether its Intel X86, x86_64, PowerPC, etc.
> > You
> > will have a convincing experience of playing an old Atari game like space
> > invaders, even though the original creators of that program never
> intended
> > it to run on a computer architecture that wouldn't be invented for
> another
> > 30 years, and the original programmers didn't have to be called in to
> > re-write their program to do so.
> Yes, I use them as well. They are indeed convincing. But this doesn't
> really
> relate to the question very much.

Are the relations between the registers and memory locations in the real
virtual Atari not preserved in the equivalent virtual registers and memory
locations of the virtual Atari?

> First, our modern computers are pretty much strictly more computationally
> powerful in every practical and theoretical way.

They aren't any more capable.  Modern computers have more memory and are
faster, sure.  But if their memory could be extended they could emulate any
computer that exists today.

> It would be more of an
> argument if you would simulate a windows on a nintendo (but you can't). I
> am
> not saying that a turing machine using 0, 1 and -1 can't emulate a machine
> using only 0 and 1.
> Secondly, even this emulations are just correct as far as our playing
> experience goes (well, at least if you are not nostalgic about hardware).
> The actual process going on in the computer is very different,

It is different if you focus on what happens at the lower level, but it is
equivalent if you look at the abstractions.

> and thus it
> makes sense to say that it computes something else. Its computation just
> have a similar results in terms of experience, but they need vastly more
> ressources and compute something more (all the virtual layers required to
> make it work).

I wouldn't say vastly.  Virtual machines of today can run with overheads of
only a few percent.

> I don't see while we would abstract from that. I can see why we do it in
> some circumstances, but the CT-thesis is a general statement, and as such
> is
> competely unwarranted, IMO.
> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >
> >> I realize that it all comes down to the notion of computation. But why
> do
> >> most choose to use such a weak notion of computation? How does machine B
> >> not
> >> compute something that A doesn't by any reasonable standard?
> >> Saying that A can compute what B computes is like saying that "orange"
> >> can
> >> express the same as the word "apple", because we can encode the word
> >> "apple"
> >> as "orange".
> >
> >
> > System A (using its own language of representation for system A), can
> > predict exactly all future states of another system B (and vice versa).
> Nope, it can't even *express* the future states.

Are you saying it is important whether one Turing machine uses a red marker
and one uses a blue, or whether one is located in a basement and another in
an attic?  (The one in the attic doesn't have the capability of expressing
'1' in a basement).

> We can just use it to
> predict a future state (if we are clever enough). But why would that be the
> standard for what is computed?
> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >
> >   A and B have different symbols, states, instructions, etc., so perhaps
> > this
> > is why you think system A can't perfectly emulate system B, but this is a
> > little like saying there are things that can only be described by Spanish
> > speakers that no other language (French, English, etc.) could describe.
> >  Sure, a translation needs to occur to communicate a Spanish idea into an
> > English one, but just because spanish and english speakers use a
> different
> > language doesn't mean there are problems only speakers of one language
> can
> > solve.
> If the languages are similiar in capability, yes. If they are not, no. Some
> languages may completely lack concepts that others have, making them
> inadequate for certain purposes (especially languages of some native people
> come to mind - they probably wouldn't be able to grasp certain concepts -
> like eg logarithm - without adding words to their language).

Do you think there are universal languages, which are not so limited?  Is
English a universal language in your opinion?

Even though there are not words for everything in English, can English be
used to approximate the meaning of any word (in another language) to
arbitrary levels of approximation?

> Even if we grant that what you say is true, why would we define computation
> as being completely abstracted from the way something is expressed?
> Especially if languages are very different (and programming languages can
> be
> *very* different) the way we express actually does matter so much that it
> is
> quite meaningless to even say the express the same thing.
> Tell me, does "00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000" really
> practically express the same thing as "44"?

It depends on the interpreter.

> For all intents and purposes, it
> does not. 44 will make clear you mean a number for everyone (even without
> context),

It might not to an alien.

> will be easy to read, will be easily interpreted without error,
> will be easier to correctly use, etc...
> So using different symbols will expand what the system can express on a
> very
> relevant level.

At the lowest level but not at higher levels.  You are using a computer to
type an email which uses a "tape" that has only 2 states.  Yet you are
still able to type "44".

> This is even more obvious if we take a more extreme example: Does
> 10001101001010101010111100... (goes on for 10000000 more symbols) really
> express the same as the photo it represents?

If we sent it to an alien civilization, they might be able to interpret it
as a picture, but in general I agree that arbitrary bit strings can be
interpreted in many different ways.

> Hardly at all. For one thing,
> it only makes sense as being a photo because we know it is supposed to be a
> photo and use the data accordingly - but this information itself is not
> contained in the symbols.
> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >
> >> It is true in a very limited sense, but it seems mad to treat
> >> it as the foundation of what it means for words to express something
> (and
> >> the same goes for computation).
> >> If we use such trivial notions of computation, why not say that the
> >> program
> >> "return input" emulates all turing-machines because given the right
> input
> >> it
> >> gives the right output (we just give it the solution as input).
> >>
> >
> > Many programs have no input and/or no output, but they still can be
> > rightfully said to perform different computations.
> OK. Then we use the same program but demand as input the correct
> development
> of the execution of the program (use it multiple times if you haven't
> emulated enough steps).
> You see? We can trivialize the notion of computation as much as we like, by
> adding more and more layers of interpretation, or more demands on the right
> usage of the program. It just doesn't make sense to pretend that this
> trivalization actually is what computation is.
> Sure, my example is a lot more useless than the CT notion of computation,
> but it is the same principle. Abstracting and interpreting until we arrive
> at a trivialization of the actual phenomenon.

The computer (any computer) can do the interpretation for us.  You can
enter a description of the machine at one point in time, and the state of
the machine at another time, and ask the computer is this the state the
machine will be in N steps from now.  Where 0 is no and 1 is yes, or A is
no and B is yes, or X is no and Y is yes.  Whatever symbols it might use,
any computer can be setup to answer questions about any other machine in
this way.

> A turing machine by itself simply doesn't emulate anything. We just provide
> it input and interpret its output to emulate something *using* a turing
> machine.

So computers don't add, don't compare, don't increment numbers unless a
particular person looks at it and gives a notarized stamp attesting to the
action being performed?

> Only by senselessly abstracting away the crucial steps of encoding,
> decoding
> and interpreting we arrive at the CT thesis.

All forms of communication between different entities requires encoding,
decoding, and interpreting.  It happens when people communicate, it happens
when machines communicate.  If we need to perform a translation to
understand what one machine is telling us, that is no different than any
other interaction between two different entities.

> By correctly interpreting, we can use any symbols for anything. We "just"
> have to interpret them correctly. So this symbol tells you how to build an
> very advanced AI: "°". Of course you still have to interpret what it means.
> ;)

There are limits though.  You can't communicate a message that contains
more than a amount of informational of entropy without sending a certain
number of symbols.

> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >
> >> I get that we can simply use the Church-turing as the definition of
> >> computation means. But why is it (mostly) treated as being the one and
> >> only
> >> correct notion of computation (especially in a computer science
> context)?
> >
> >
> > I think it more comes into play in the a definition of a universal
> > machine,
> > than in the definition of computation.
> >
> > It is useful because it makes it easy to prove.  All you need to do is
> > show
> > how some machine can be used to emulate any other known turning universal
> > machine.
> Well, every machine that can output its input can emulate any turing
> machine, only in a utterly trivial and useless way (just give it the
> correct
> emulation as input).

Emulations aren't static bit strings, they involve changes in state and

> The same really applies to turing machines on a different level. A turing
> machine is indeed utterly useless to perform actual, complex, real life
> computation.

Can you provide an example of such an actual, complex, real life


> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> > The only explanation I have is that it is dogma. To question it would
> > change
> >> to much and would be too "complicated" and uncomfortable. It would make
> >> computation an irreducibly complex and relative notion or - heaven
> forbid
> >> -
> >> even an inherently subjective notion (computation from which
> >> perspective?).
> >
> >
> > Reverse engineering machine language code is very difficult, but there
> are
> > automated programs for doing this that can provide much more readable
> > program code.  Code too, can be difficult to grasp, (see
> > http://www.ioccc.org/ for example), but in other cases, code is easy to
> > understand.  I often prefer a snippet of example code to a notation-heavy
> > mathematical formula.
> >
> OK, but I don't get the relation to what I wrote.
> benjayk
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://old.nabble.com/Why-the-Church-Turing-thesis--tp34348236p34398854.html
> Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> --
> 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@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

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@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to