begin quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] as of Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 11:56:30PM -0700: > > This isn't the same thing "in other words", and it's not correct. The > > program doesn't imitate another machine, it's the description of > > another machine, so that the physical machine may imitate that other > > machine. > > Yes I think you are right. A description of a Universal Turing > Machine (the UTM program) is not the same thing the UTM which is > a physical thing.
Conceptually. Conceptually a physical thing. It isn't *really* a physical machine. In practice, you don't get an infinite tape to process, nor do you get an unbounded but finite time in which to do the computation. > It is indeed odd that this certain physical machine is so > incredibly flexible as to be able to mimic an infinite number > of other physical machines known as Turing Machines. Is it? Remember, those other machines aren't arbitrary machines, they're Turing Machines, which are Really Simple. -- _ |\_ \| -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
