Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Mirror Notation: Symbol Manipulation Without Inscription Manipulation.Roy A. Sorensen - 1999 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 28 (2):141-164.
    Stereotypically, computation involves intrinsic changes to the medium of representation: writing new symbols, erasing old symbols, turning gears, flipping switches, sliding abacus beads. Perspectival computation leaves the original inscriptions untouched. The problem solver obtains the output by merely alters his orientation toward the input. There is no rewriting or copying of the input inscriptions; the output inscriptions are numerically identical to the input inscriptions. This suggests a loophole through some of the computational limits apparently imposed by physics. There can be (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • An Argument for P=NP.Selmer Bringsjord - manuscript
    Selmer Bringsjord & Joshua Taylor∗ Department of Cognitive Science Department of Computer Science The Rensselaer AI & Reasoning (RAIR) Lab Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) Troy NY 12180 USA http://www.rpi.edu/∼brings {selmer,tayloj}@rpi.edu..
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Super Turing-Machines.B. Jack Copeland - 1998 - Complexity 4 (1):30-32.
  • Accelerating Turing Machines.B. Jack Copeland - 2002 - Minds and Machines 12 (2):281-300.
    Accelerating Turing machines are Turing machines of a sort able to perform tasks that are commonly regarded as impossible for Turing machines. For example, they can determine whether or not the decimal representation of contains n consecutive 7s, for any n; solve the Turing-machine halting problem; and decide the predicate calculus. Are accelerating Turing machines, then, logically impossible devices? I argue that they are not. There are implications concerning the nature of effective procedures and the theoretical limits of computability. Contrary (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations  
  • Supermachines and Superminds.Eric Steinhart - 2003 - Minds and Machines 13 (1):155-186.
    If the computational theory of mind is right, then minds are realized by machines. There is an ordered complexity hierarchy of machines. Some finite machines realize finitely complex minds; some Turing machines realize potentially infinitely complex minds. There are many logically possible machines whose powers exceed the Church–Turing limit (e.g. accelerating Turing machines). Some of these supermachines realize superminds. Superminds perform cognitive supertasks. Their thoughts are formed in infinitary languages. They perceive and manipulate the infinite detail of fractal objects. They (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Logically Possible Machines.Eric Steinhart - 2002 - Minds and Machines 12 (2):259-280.
    I use modal logic and transfinite set-theory to define metaphysical foundations for a general theory of computation. A possible universe is a certain kind of situation; a situation is a set of facts. An algorithm is a certain kind of inductively defined property. A machine is a series of situations that instantiates an algorithm in a certain way. There are finite as well as transfinite algorithms and machines of any degree of complexity (e.g., Turing and super-Turing machines and more). There (...)
    Direct download (15 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Infinite Time Turing Machines.Joel David Hamkins - 2002 - Minds and Machines 12 (4):567-604.
    Infinite time Turing machines extend the operation of ordinary Turing machines into transfinite ordinal time. By doing so, they provide a natural model of infinitary computability, a theoretical setting for the analysis of the power and limitations of supertask algorithms.
    Direct download (18 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • Computation and Hypercomputation.Mike Stannett - 2003 - Minds and Machines 13 (1):115-153.
    Does Nature permit the implementation of behaviours that cannot be simulated computationally? We consider the meaning of physical computation in some detail, and present arguments in favour of physical hypercomputation: for example, modern scientific method does not allow the specification of any experiment capable of refuting hypercomputation. We consider the implications of relativistic algorithms capable of solving the (Turing) Halting Problem. We also reject as a fallacy the argument that hypercomputation has no relevance because non-computable values are indistinguishable from sufficiently (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Beyond the Universal Turing Machine.Jack Copeland - 1999 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 77 (1):46-67.
    We describe an emerging field, that of nonclassical computability and nonclassical computing machinery. According to the nonclassicist, the set of well-defined computations is not exhausted by the computations that can be carried out by a Turing machine. We provide an overview of the field and a philosophical defence of its foundations.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • The Philosophy of Computer Science.Raymond Turner - 2013 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • A Física da Terminação.José Félix Costa - 2016 - Kairos 16 (1):14-60.
    Sumário Mostramos que, em virtude dos limites teóricos da computação, nem toda a ciência formulada com carácter preditivo pode ser simulada. Em particular, evidencia- se que a Fisica Clássica, nomeadamente a Físíca Newtoniana, padece deste mal, encerrando processos de Zenão.
    No categories
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark