Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Flibble's Law Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 20:23:33 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 42 Message-ID: <877c3by30q.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> References: <19955e68400bc2ad935f413f012fe04011f7cf75@i2pn2.org> <7c47bbe68c1cf317ddb2a0418564127c1471e11b@i2pn2.org> <87jz7bygci.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <8b378dd6e80850b959dcebd414c8c78e82752266@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 05:23:36 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="559a91cae6b172c7f978eee8629ad54d"; logging-data="2198073"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+XBDL5WjZHa3umlPLS10t0" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cancel-Lock: sha1:8pTKUFnjBuV3VWIKrzlAT8PqgLE= sha1:9lGUpjyZOkpRoMfjre/mr/stG8g= Richard Damon writes: [...] > Yes, there is a nuance, but there ARE some processes that aren't just > unbounded by go infinite. Unbounded can only reach countable infinity, > but not uncountable infinity. Thus a process that was performing the > super-task of writing out all the real numbers between 0 and 1 would > use TRULY infinite tape (needing at least Aleph-1 cells) and infinite > time to complete. Hmm. It seems to me that that would be beyond the scope of any Turing machine. A trivial Turing machine could write out an unending sequence of 1s to its tape, never halting. Such a machine would need a truly infinite tape (Aleph-0 cells) if you let it run for an infinite time. I suppose you could loosely say that it "finishes" its task of writing infinite 1s after an infinite time. Another TM could repeatedly write 1s to the same location without moving the tape; such a machine could be left running for an infinite type but would only consume finite tape. I suggest that something that can potentially execute Aleph-1 steps or consume Aleph-1 tape cells is not a TM. > In the same way, an unbounded process, could be thought of, as > "finishing" after a countable infinite number of steps, while another > process might just never stop as in a countable infinite number of > steps it never reaches its end (because it takes an uncountable > infinite number of steps). I'd say that a TM that takes a countably infinite number of steps just never completes (though we can discuss the *limit* of its output), while a machine that takes an uncountably infinite number of steps isn't a TM. Actual experts, please jump in and tell me where I'm wrong. [...] -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */