On Fri, Jul 19, 2019, at 16:01, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 4:52 AM Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: >> __ > >> > ***Nobody ever used the Turing Machine as an architecture for computation,* > > Everybody's architecture for computation without exception can be reduced to > a Turing Machine and nobody has ever found anything simpler, aka more > fundamental, that could be implemented physically. > >
Well... meet the domino computer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_computer > > >> > *outside of theoretical domains. Not even Turing himself, for the simple >> > reason that it would be terribly inefficient.* > > Yes, obviously a paper tape would be very very slow so for economic reasons a > vast number of bells and whistles are added, but those are all just a matter > of engineering convenience, so if you're just talking about philosophy, and > for most on this list that's all they're interested in, then they are all > irrelevant. > >> *> Computers to this day mostly follow the Von Neumann architecture,* > > Most do some don't, such as Dataflow Machines or Graph Reduction Machines. > But talking about the difference between Von Neumann architecture and non Von > Neumann architecture is like talking about the difference between a steam > engine and a gasoline engine while Turing was talking about the laws of > thermodynamics. Exactly, that is my point. > >> *> It seems clear to me that Turing Machines, Van Neumann Machines and GPUs >> are just implementations of something which is purely abstract -- >> computation.* > > Turing Machines are in a more fundamental category than the other two. All > Van Neumann Machines and GPUs are Turing Machines but not all Turing Machines > are Van Neumann Machines or GPUs. The only equivalence used in Computer Science is in completeness: Van Neumann Machines and GPUs are Turing Complete, in the sense that they are as general a computational device as a Turing Machine. I never heard or read anyone before claiming that Turing Machines are physically more fundamental, in the sense that they are at some root of a category to which modern digital computers belong. My question to you then, is this: How do you decide if something is a Turing Machine or not? Is Domino a Turing Machine? What about my brain? What about the billiard ball computer? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billiard-ball_computer > >> >> *> You insist that nobody has been able to produce a computer without using >> matter. I agree. What you refuse to consider is the possibility that matter >> is the dream of computations,* > > All theories need experimental conformation and the above theory has been > tested many times and the results have always been negative, people have > dreamed of computation but nothing happens, the law of the conservation of > mass/energy has always remained true regardless of dreams. Most people can remember having dreams, I imagine you can too. Then you know that your brain is somehow capable of generating a "fake" reality just for you. So can you ever prove to yourself that you are not dreaming? Telmo. > > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1oy7LzAecQ6VA4pp9XNM_%2BU8dCXE7u-kfnejWyxeFa%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1oy7LzAecQ6VA4pp9XNM_%2BU8dCXE7u-kfnejWyxeFa%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a9e6d2cc-bb24-414f-be7b-b1df37b5c258%40www.fastmail.com.
