tj@mks.UUCP (T. J. Thompson) (02/24/88)
In article <11893@brl-adm.ARPA>, dsill@nswc-oas.arpa (Dave Sill) writes: > Turing machines are universal computational devices, but simulations > of Turing Machines are not. I would be curious to see a defence of this claim. Consider, for example, a simulation of a Turing machine run on a Turing machine. -- ll // // ,'/~~\' T. J. Thompson uunet!watmath!mks!tj /ll/// //l' `\\\ Mortice Kern Systems Inc. (519) 884-2251 / l //_// ll\___/ 35 King St. N., Waterloo, Ont., Can. N2J 2W9 O_/ Do not void where prohibited
dsill@nswc-oas.arpa (Dave Sill) (02/26/88)
T. J. Thompson <tj@mks.uucp> writes: >In article <11893@brl-adm.ARPA>, dsill@nswc-oas.arpa (Dave Sill) writes: >> Turing machines are universal computational devices, but simulations >> of Turing Machines are not. > >I would be curious to see a defence of this claim. >Consider, for example, a simulation of a Turing machine >run on a Turing machine. Perhaps I should have said "Turing machines are universal computational devices, but simulations of Turing machines are not *necessarily* universal computational devices. My point was that a vi-based TM simulation is not a universal computer. This is no longer a wizards issue. ========= The opinions expressed above are mine. "[Programmers who prefer to drive a shift car are not] positioned to design interactive systems." -- Ted Nelson (quoted from Byte) [But Ted, don't forget that there are customers who *prefer* manual transmissions...]