2012/9/11 benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>

>
>
> Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
> >
> > 2012/9/11 benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
> >> >
> >> > 2012/9/10 benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > > No program can determine its hardware.  This is a consequence of
> >> the
> >> >> > > Church
> >> >> > > Turing thesis.  The particular machine at the lowest level has no
> >> >> > bearing
> >> >> > > (from the program's perspective).
> >> >> > If that is true, we can show that CT must be false, because we
> *can*
> >> >> > define
> >> >> > a "meta-program" that has access to (part of) its own hardware
> >> (which
> >> >> > still
> >> >> > is intuitively computable - we can even implement it on a
> computer).
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> It's false, the program *can't* know that the hardware it has access
> >> to
> >> >> is
> >> >> the *real* hardware and not a simulated hardware. The program has
> only
> >> >> access to hardware through IO, and it can't tell (as never ever) from
> >> >> that
> >> >> interface if what's outside is the *real* outside or simulated
> >> outside.
> >> >> <\quote>
> >> >> Yes that is true. If anything it is true because the hardware is not
> >> even
> >> >> clearly determined at the base level (quantum uncertainty).
> >> >> I should have expressed myself more accurately and written "
> >> "hardware"
> >> "
> >> >> or
> >> >> "relative 'hardware'". We can define a (meta-)programs that have
> >> access
> >> >> to
> >> >> their "hardware" in the sense of knowing what they are running on
> >> >> relative
> >> >> to some notion of "hardware". They cannot be emulated using universal
> >> >> turing
> >> >> machines
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Then it's not a program if it can't run on a universal turing machine.
> >> >
> >> The funny thing is, it *can* run on a universal turing machine. Just
> that
> >> it
> >> may lose relative correctness if we do that.
> >
> >
> > Then you must be wrong... I don't understand your point. If it's a
> program
> > it has access to the "outside" through IO, hence it is impossible for a
> > program to differentiate "real" outside from simulated outside... It's a
> > simple fact, so either you're wrong or what you're describing is not a
> > program, not an algorithm and not a computation.
> OK, it depends on what you mean by "program". If you presume that a program
> can't access its "hardware",


I *do not presume it*... it's a *fact*.

Quentin


> then what I am describing is indeed not a
> program.
>
> But most definitions don't preclude that. Carrying out instructions
> precisely and step-by-step can be done with or without access to your
> hardware.
>
> Anyway, meta-programs can be instantiated using real computer (a program
> can, in principle, know and utilize part of a more basic computational
> layer
> if programmed correctly), so we at least know that real computers are
> beyond
> turing machines.
>
> benjayk
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://old.nabble.com/Why-the-Church-Turing-thesis--tp34348236p34417676.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.
>
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
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.

Reply via email to