Let's be precise about what Turing meant in his paper. He discusses various kinds of number, including configuration number, machine number, rth figure, etc.
The relation between a non-halting machine and a halting machine is that to write (figure) any number requires a decision-making algorithm, which can invoke a "circle-free" process that will recurse a finite number of times. Another number mentioned is a determinable number (which implies a determination).
This is again, all fundamental to coding and code-breaking since you cannot write a code with an "infinite" representation.
It's easy to give an example of a Turing machine that writes to a finite number of cells, but difficult to say how giving the example refutes the statement, which says if you can write down a number, you can write an algorithm that can do the same thing. That's if you can get the hang of what a determination is, why a machine would use a configuration number, or write an rth figure (in a finite cell).
What's "garbled" about determining a finite number of places; what does Turing mean with "the rth figure is c"?
In short, nothing definitive has been said; the only definitive thing here is that some fuckwit mod bunged this in pseudoscience.
You are obliged to do this, whoever the fuck you are, because you think you know what physics is, and what the word "mathematics" means.
But you're just a fuckwit after all.
You fuckwit.
... yeah, that's you pal.
The relation between a non-halting machine and a halting machine is that to write (figure) any number requires a decision-making algorithm, which can invoke a "circle-free" process that will recurse a finite number of times. Another number mentioned is a determinable number (which implies a determination).
This is again, all fundamental to coding and code-breaking since you cannot write a code with an "infinite" representation.
funkstar said:
It's easy to give an example of a Turing machine that writes to a finite number of cells, but difficult to say how giving the example refutes the statement, which says if you can write down a number, you can write an algorithm that can do the same thing. That's if you can get the hang of what a determination is, why a machine would use a configuration number, or write an rth figure (in a finite cell).
What's "garbled" about determining a finite number of places; what does Turing mean with "the rth figure is c"?
In short, nothing definitive has been said; the only definitive thing here is that some fuckwit mod bunged this in pseudoscience.
You are obliged to do this, whoever the fuck you are, because you think you know what physics is, and what the word "mathematics" means.
But you're just a fuckwit after all.
You fuckwit.
... yeah, that's you pal.
Last edited: