On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:47 AM, rusi <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote: > I can only say how ironic it sounds to someone who is familiar with the > history of our field: > Turing was not a computer scientist (the term did not exist then) but a > mathematician. And his major contribution was to create a form of argument > so much more rigorous than what erstwhile mathematicians were used to that he > was justified in calling that math as a machine. > > The irony is that today's generation assumes that 'some-machine' implies its > something like 'Intel-machine'. > To get out of this confusion ask yourself: Is it finite or infinite? > If the TM were finite it would be a DFA > If the Intel-machine (and like) were infinite they would need to exist in a > different universe.
With due respect Sir, you saying that Turing machine not a machine? Very confusion Sir!!! > > And so when you understand that TMs are just a kind of mathematical rewrite > system (as is λ calculus as are context free grammars as is school arithmetic > etc etc) you will not find the equivalence so surprising -- Ravi -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
