Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!ucrmath!x!baez
From: baez@x.ucr.edu (john baez)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Reasons why you don't prove your programs are correct
Message-ID: <3330@ucrmath.UCR.EDU>
Date: 13 Jan 90 01:25:43 GMT
References: <25711@cup.portal.com> <1449@krafla.rhi.hi.is> <1990Jan11.015531.20996@world.std.com> <9220@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <1862@mrsvr.UUCP>
Sender: news@ucrmath.UCR.EDU
Reply-To: baez@x.UUCP (john baez)
Organization: University of California, Riverside
Lines: 10

In article <1862@mrsvr.UUCP> hallett@gemed.ge.com (Jeffrey A. Hallett (414) 548-5163) writes:
>little.  Turing compatibility is all well and good, but  I think if we
>are going to have any major breakthroughs  in computing technology, it
>will involve a step beyond Turing machines.  Generally, they still are
>too limited to  yield the results we really need.

Luckily, right now I'm perfecting my perpetual motion machine, 
which will generate enough energy for my time machine to send
me far enough into the future to get the blueprints for a 
computer that computes nonrecursive functions.