It’s because covid has prevented everyone from touring and we’re getting cranky and pedantic. Justin > On Feb 25, 2021, at 15:17, admin_at_wavestarinteractive.com admin@wavestarinteractive.com <admin@wavestarinteractive.com> wrote: > > In which case, "Turing complete" is nonsense. > > Unless you have infinite memory, it isn't really Turing complete because it isn't complete because we do not have infinite memory so why are we even talking about "Turing completeness" since nothing.... not even an IBM Summit supercomputer is "Turing Complete" unless you are cheating on the specifications of "Turing complete" by defining a minimum amount of memory. > > So what the hell are we babbling about here? > >> On 02/25/2021 12:37 PM Segher Boessenkool <segher_at_kernel.crashing.org> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 04:16:38PM +0100, silverdr_at_wfmh.org.pl wrote: >>> The reason I don't subscribe is that the same as before we're not on the same page when it comes to definitions of important terms/their scopes and contexts, like >>> >>> - when emulation stops being one and becomes prototype >>> - when emulation stops being one and becomes real thing >> >> Well, what do you call emulation? Many CPUs cannot actually execute all >> instructions of their architecture: they emulate some (often using >> microcode or similar). >> >> And any Turing machine can emulate any other Turing machine. >> >> (Not that you can actually build any Turing machine: infinite memory is >> required). >> >>> - when a "PGA" (like the one originally used for PLA implementation) is the real thing and when not >>> - what constitutes the core functionality/logic and what the supporting infrastructure >>> - probably more >>> >>> And I somehow don't see us finding common frame of reference on those any time soon :-) >> >> Most of it is philosophy and not practically interesting at all. >> >> >> Segher >Received on 2021-02-25 23:00:59
Archive generated by hypermail 2.3.0.