Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cme!kohout
From: kohout@cme.nist.gov (Robert Kohout)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Searle and Radical Translation
Message-ID: <5692@puggsly.cme.nist.gov>
Date: 9 Aug 90 14:00:00 GMT
References: <612@ntpdvp1.UUCP> <5362@puggsly.cme.nist.gov> <614@ntpdvp1.UUCP> <5644@puggsly.cme.nist.gov> <620@ntpdvp1.UUCP>
Reply-To: kohout@cme.nist.gov (Robert Kohout)
Organization: Nat'l Institue of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD
Lines: 44

In article <620@ntpdvp1.UUCP> kenp@ntpdvp1.UUCP (Ken Presting) writes:
>
>In article <5644@puggsly.cme.nist.gov>, kohout@cme.nist.gov (Robert Kohout) writes:
>>
>> To "formally" defend his assertion that "real" computers are "obviously"
>> more powerful that Turing Machines...
>
>Bob, you are now misquoting me.  Let me remind you of my assertion:
>
>  >. . . Each time a TM is given a particular input, the tape is erased
>  >and the internal state is reset.  So the TM computes a *function* - same
>  >input => same output.  That is obviously false for real computers, which
>  >have updateable databases. . . .
>  >
>  >Theorems about TM's, which compute functions, do not apply to real machines,
>  >for purely formal reasons.  Real machines do not, in the technical sense,
>  >compute functions.
>

Very interesting, Ken. I am misquoting you. Perhaps you "overlooked" the
sentence that should be replaced by the ". . ." preceding your quotation
above. Lest we forget:

Message-ID: <612@ntpdvp1.UUCP>

"But I think it is perfectly obvious that real computers are more than TM's.
Not because they are physical objects, but because they have a permanent
memory.  Each time a TM is given a particular input, the tape is erased..."

As I said in my first posting, which was primarily a response to the FIRST
sentence, I'm quite sure I misread you. However, what you said is

"I think it *PERFECTLY OBVIOUS* that *REAL* computers are *MORE THAN* TM's."

(emphasis mine)

Obviously, I have misinterpreted what you meant by "more than". That is,
you apparently feel that "more powerful than" and "more than" are so
essentially non-equivalent as to constitute a mis-quotation.  However,
your obvious omission of this sentence in the quote you now post seems
to me to indicate that you no longer wish to defend this statement...
Why can't you just admit that?

R.Kohout