On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 12:54:25PM -0700, Stewart Stremler wrote:
> begin quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] as of Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 12:15:06PM -0700:
> > > 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.
> >
> > You don't need an infinite tape. You just need some finite amount
> > of tape.....You can "simulate" an infinte tape by just giving
> > your machine more and more tape as it needs it. It "appears"
> > to the machine that it has an infinite amount.
>
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-machine
>
> "Turing machines are not physical objects but mathematical ones."
>
> "A Turing machine has an infinite one-dimensional tape divided into
> cells."
>
Sounds like a tape worm ...
--
Lan Barnes
Linux Guy, SCM Specialist
Tcl/Tk Enthusiast
This administration's foreign policy reminds me of watching someone
trying to play chess without being able to think more than one move
ahead.
- Molly Ivins
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
