On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 10:53:05 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 5:55:33 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 3:28:13 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> Why don't we all chip in an buy Alan a computer so he can look stuff up >>> on Wikipedia. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> *I will when you have the courtesy to explain your contradictory >> statements about the instantaneous, infinite extent of the wf. Oh BTW, with >> your big brain, I suppose it never occurred to you that I wanted to hear >> Bruno's definition, which if experience is worth anything, could be wildly >> DIFFERENT from Wiki. While you assess all that, why don't you go fuck >> yourself, and then tell us how it felt. OK? AG* >> > > *FWIW, comparing Bruno's description with Wiki, which was my intent, > confirms, at least for me, that the postulates of QM are easier to > understand, even though many of the defining functions of a Turing Machine > are known to those who have programmed modern computers, notwithstanding > that the latter use random access memory. I don't see why the use of RAM is > decisively important in distinguishing a Turing Machine from how modern > computers are designed. AG* >
*For example, instead of a "tape" as used when Alan Turing was active, one can substitute the instruction pointer, a register that advances with each clock pulse, which points to the next executable instruction, where the latter are sequentially resident in RAM. AG * > >> >>> On 8/22/2018 5:58 PM, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 8:26 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >> >>>>> Yes, the Busy Beaver Function is not computable. We know that: >>>>> >>>>> BB(1) =1 >>>>> BB(2) =6 >>>>> BB(3) =21 >>>>> BB(4) =107 >>>>> >>>> >>>> * > You haven't *written* the function, just its alleged values for >>>> 1,2,3,4. What is the function? * >>>> >>> >>> >>> Starting with a all zero tape BB(N) is the number of operations any N >>> state Turing Machine performs after it writes the largest number of 1's and >>> then halts. It is very important that it halt, some machines will go on >>> forever but they don't count. For example we know for sure that BB(5) is at >>> least 47,176,870 because one 5 state Turing Machine has been found that >>> halts after it goes through 47,176,870 operations (and prints 4098 1’s on >>> the tape), but there are 28 other 5 state machines displaying non-regular >>> behavior that are well past 47,176,870 operations and 4098 1's. If one of >>> them eventually halts then that larger number of operations will be BB(5), >>> if none of them ever halts then 47,176,870 really is BB(5); but the trouble >>> is we'll never be able to know it’s 47,176,870 because we'll never know >>> that none of those other 28 5 state machines will never halt because the >>> Halting problem is insolvable. >>> >>> John K Clark >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
