Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!rochester!udel!haven.umd.edu!socrates.umd.edu!socrates!rockwell From: rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Rockwell) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Will this *thread* ever halt? Message-ID: Date: 30 May 91 00:08:59 GMT References: <31051@dime.cs.umass.edu> <31195@dime.cs.umass.edu> Sender: rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Rockwell) Organization: Traveller Lines: 37 In-Reply-To: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu's message of 29 May 91 04: 04:57 GMT Victor Yodaiken: \begin{quote} Turing machines are widely considered to be the abstract prototype of digital computers; workers in the field, however, have felt more and more that the notion of a Turing machine is too general to serve as an accurate model of actual computers. It is well known that for even a simple calculation it is impossible to give an {\it a priori} upper bound on the amount of tape a Turing machine will neeed for any given computation. It is precisely this feature which renders Turing's concept unrealistic. \end{quote} author="Rabin M.O. and Dana Scott", [etc...] While this quote may be literally accurate (workers in the field have felt...) it misses what I feel is a rather major point: The reason it is impossible to give an upper bound of tape on a Turing machine for a given computation is because these computations are traditionally expressed for *arbitrarily large objects*. If any object can be arbitrarily large then it doesn't matter WHAT the computation is, it will take an arbitrarily large amount of tape to represent the computation on that object. Note that if you limit your objects to some finite size (like, integers whose absolute magnitude is less than 2 billion), you can represent (for example) multiplication of two of these numbers using only two tape cells. Of course, then you have to deal with overflow conditions, but that's a problem with any finite number representation. Note that you do *not* want to write out each of the quadrapoles by hand for this kind of turing machine--so don't. Just use parameterized descriptions. Raul Rockwell