Re: Can we agree on what a machine is?

Don Mikulecky (mikuleck@HSC.VCU.EDU)
Fri, 29 Jan 1999 16:34:51 -0500

Don Mikulecky replies:
Help me I'm confused? I am sorry if I left off the word "finite" from the
definition. Clearly I am working with Arbib's definition of a finite Automata.
It
doesn't work for the case you asked about. That has to be dealt with in another
way. The issue we seem to be dancing around is realizability, not anything like
complexity. Maybe I'm missing something?
Don

Ricardo Ribeiro Gudwin wrote:

> Don Mikulecky wrote:
>
> > Don Mikulecky replies:
> >
> > yes your notation for Cartesian Product is clearer
> >
> > you will note that all my sets in the definition I used from Arbib's
> > category theory are FINITE. Clealy, continuous intervals must be dealt with
> > differently. This is more an issue of representation than a new conclusion
> > as I see it. Am I missing something?
> > Don
>
> Actually, I have second intentions on proposing such derivations from finite
> (discrete) to continuous. My point is ... if they are not MACHINES, then what
> are they ? Maybe ... complex systems ? Or, if not complex systems, then what ?
> Ricardo
>
> --
> //\\\
> (o o)
> +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-oOO--(_)--OOo-=-=-+
> \ Prof. Ricardo Ribeiro Gudwin /
> / Intelligent Systems Development Group \
> \ DCA - FEEC - UNICAMP | INTERNET /
> / Caixa Postal 6101 | gudwin@dca.fee.unicamp.br \
> \ 13081-970 Campinas, SP | gudwin@fee.unicamp.br /
> / BRAZIL | gudwin@correionet.com.br \
> +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
> \ URL: http://www.dca.fee.unicamp.br/~gudwin/ /
> / Telephones: +55 (19) 788-3819 DCA/Unicamp (University) \
> \ +55 (19) 254-0184 Residencia (Home) /
> / FAX: +55 (19) 289-1395 \
> +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+