From: Ray Cromwell <rjc@access.digex.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 94 13:45:15 PDT
To: berzerk@xmission.xmission.com (Berzerk)
Subject: Re: GUT and NP
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9407271323.A17279-0100000@xmission>
Message-ID: <199407272044.AA27619@access3.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Berzerk:
> > 2) all of this precision actually makes a difference
> true.
> 
> >    For instance, at the level of brain chemistry, who cares
> > about quantum precision when thermal noises will swamp it anyway?
> > (the Penrose argument even goes as far as assuming quantum gravity, a force
> > pitifully weak, as a signficant factor)
> What does that have to do with the above?

   The principle the arbitrary precision that comes from continuum
is swamped by just about everything else so building a machine
based on it is practically impossible?

> >   And regardless of whether quantum computers work or not, they are
> > still algorithmic if they can be simulated (however slowly) by
> > a turing machine. It's a rigorous mathematical definition.  Claiming
> Sure, I never said otherwise, just that it is conceivable that some 
> continum phenomina can't be described algorithmicly AT ALL.

  I wasn't talking specifically to you, I was talking to James 
Donald. It's conceivable that little green men also exist,
do you have a particular example in mind of your non-algorithmic
phenomena? 

> > otherwise uses algorithm in a manner different than was intended. 
> > It's like the way Ludwig Plutonium solves all those famous problems
> > in sci.math by assuming different definitions of primality, etc.
> > Quantum computers might be faster than classical computers, but
> > non-algorithmic, I don't think so.
> Hmmm, argument by plutonium?  Try again.

    Your turn. I already layed out the definition. I can quote it from
as many automata theory texts as you like. One can not simply change
the definition of algorithm just because one doesn't like it. If
you do, you're no better than dear old Ludwig.