Search Results

Search found 113 results on 5 pages for 'turing'.

Page 2/5 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5  | Next Page >

  • Is it possible to create a quine in every turing-complete language?

    - by sub
    I just wanted to know if it is 100% possible, if my language is turing-complete, to write a program in it that prints itself out (of course not using a file reading function) So if the language just has the really necessary things in order to make it turing complete (I would prove that by translating Brainf*ck code to it), like output, variables, conditions and gotos (hell yes, gotos), can I try writing a quine in it? I'm also asking this because I'm not sure that a quine directly fits into Turing's law that the turing machine is capable of any computational task. I just want to know so I don't try for years without knowing that it may be impossible.

    Read the article

  • GDL Presents: Van Gogh Meets Alan Turing

    GDL Presents: Van Gogh Meets Alan Turing How can art and daily life be joined together? Host Ido Green chats with creators Uri Shaked & Tom Teman about tackling this question with their "Music Room" -- a case study in the power of Android -- and with Emmanuel Witzthum on his project "Dissolving Realities," which aims to connect the virtual environment of the Internet using Google Street View. Host: Ido Green, Developer Advocate Guests: Uri Shaked and Emmanuel Witzthum From: GoogleDevelopers Views: 0 0 ratings Time: 00:00 More in Science & Technology

    Read the article

  • Does Turing-complete implies possibility of malware? [closed]

    - by Mathematician82
    Is it possible to build an operating system that contains some Turing complete compiler (language?) but is unable to run any malware? Or is there any definition for a malware? This question popped on my mind as I was wondering why Windows has more malware than Linux. If Linux contains a C programming language and its compiler, I think it is possible to write a Linux program that works similarly than Windows viruses. But there are less malware for Linux than for Windows although there is a Wine for Linux to simulate Windows programs.

    Read the article

  • what practical proofs are there about the Turing completeness of neural nets? what nns can execute c

    - by Albert
    I'm interested in the computational power of neural nets. It is generally accepted that recurrent neural nets are Turing complete. Now I was searching for some papers which proofs this. What I found so far: Turing computability with neural nets, Hava T. Siegelmann and Eduardo D. Sontag, 1991 I think this is only interesting from a theoretical point of view because it needs to have the neuron activity of infinite exactness (to encode the state somehow as a rational number). S. Franklin and M. Garzon, Neural computability This needs an unbounded number of neurons and also doesn't really seem to be that much practical. (Note that another question of mine tries to point out this kind of problem between such theoretical results and the practice.) I'm searching mostly for some neural net which really can execute some code which I can also simulate and test in practice. Of course, in practice, they would have some kind of limited memory. Does anyone know something like this?

    Read the article

  • Can these sorts of programs exist in every Turing-complete language?

    - by I can't tell you my name.
    In every Turing-Complete language, is it possible to create a working Compiler for itself which first runs on an interpreter written in some other language and then compiles it's own source code? (Bootstrapping) Standards-Compilant C++ compiler which outputs binaries for, e.g.: Windows? Regex Parser and Evaluater? World of Warcraft clone? (Assuming the language gets the necessary API bindings as, for example, OpenGL and the WoW source code is available) (Everything here theoretical) Let's take Brainf*ck as an example language.

    Read the article

  • I've heard that LaTeX is Turing complete. Are there any programs written in LaTeX?

    - by ire_and_curses
    It's possible to do interesting things with what would ordinarily be thought of as typesetting languages. For example, you can construct the Mandelbrot set using postscript. It is suggested in this MathOverflow question that LaTeX may be Turing-complete. This implies the ability to write arbitrary programs (although it may not be easy!). Does anyone know of any concrete example of such a program in LaTeX, which does something highly unusual with the language?

    Read the article

  • Why call-by-value evaluation strategy is not Turing complete?

    - by Roman
    I'm reading an article about different evaluation strategies (I linked article in wiki, but I'm reading another one not in English). And it says that unlike to call-by-name and call-by-need strategies, call-by-value strategy is not Turing complete. Can anybody explain, please, why is it so? If it's possible, add an example pls.

    Read the article

  • Commémoration du centenaire d'Alan Turing, "il était l'un des premiers à établir ce qu'était un ordinateur" pour le directeur de Microsoft Research

    Commémoration du centenaire d'Alan Turing « il était l'un des premiers à établir ce qu'était un ordinateur » pour le directeur de Microsoft Research Ce samedi 23 juin 2012 marquera le centième anniversaire d'Alan Turing, un pionnier de l'informatique moderne. Considéré comme « le père de l'ordinateur », Alan Turing est un mathématicien britannique né en 1912. Il est connu pour avoir percé le code de l'encodeuse Enigma utilisée par les nazis lors de la Seconde Guerre mondiale pour chiffrer les messages. En 1950, il créa le célèbre « Test de Turing », qu'il formula dans l'article « Computing Machinery and Intelligence », dans lequel il qualifie un ordinateur d'intelligent si celui-ci...

    Read the article

  • Un ordinateur réussit pour la première fois le test de Turing en se faisant passer pour un garçon de 13 ans

    Un ordinateur réussit pour la première fois le test de Turing en se faisant passer pour un garçon de 13 ansUn ordinateur grâce à un programme informatique a réussi pour la première fois à convaincre des chercheurs qu'il était un enfant de 13 ans, devenant ainsi la première machine à passer le test Turing.L'exploit réalisé par cette machine marque une date qui sera probablement écrite dans les annales de l'informatique et plus précisément de l'intelligence artificielle. Le test de Turing a été établi...

    Read the article

  • Can a programming language without arrays be turing-complete?

    - by Ring
    My question is simple: There are no arrays possible. That means you can address variables only "statically" by directly using their unique name. (This already throws out the default array syntax variable[ index ] and variable variables) "Emulated arrays" are counted as arrays and excluded too. Examples: You could basically simulate arrays using strings (quite easily actually) or use variable variables as in PHP. Can such a language be turing-complete? Brainf*ck for example has arrays, in fact it is one big array, isn't it?

    Read the article

  • How to create a Turing machine that takes a single digit decimal number from 0 - 9 and output the cu

    - by Julian
    I'm working on a project for a Turning machine but having problems conceptualizing the steps. f(x) = x^3, where x is a single digit between 0 - 9 inclusive. Based on my understanding I am to convert the number to binary but how do I find the cube of a number in binary. Also, how do I write the cube on the tape. So far I'm thinking I should create a state diagram that accepts the binary versions of 0-9 but what next?

    Read the article

  • Is there a better approach to speech synthesis than text-to-speech for more natural output? [closed]

    - by Anne Nonimus
    We've all heard the output of text-to-speech systems, and for anything but very short phrases, it sounds very machine-like. The ultimate goal of speech synthesis systems is to pass a Turing test of hearing. Clearly, the state of the art in text-to-speech has much to improve. However, speech synthesis isn't restricted to just text-to-speech systems, and I'm wondering if other approaches have been tried with better success. In other words, has there been any work done (libraries, software, research papers, etc.) on natural speech synthesis other than text-to-speech systems?

    Read the article

  • How could a quine in my programming language look?

    - by ads
    I have created a turing-complete programming language (already proven) so it must be possible to write a quine for it, right? But all quines I know store their source code in a string and then replace a special character in it using something like chr and ord. My language only has the following Basic arithmetics Int and string types Variables == operator Conditional gotos I have no idea how I could write a quine as I have no real string manipulation available, I can only output constant strings. Yet, it is 100% turing-complete.

    Read the article

  • What makes people think that NNs have more computational power than existing models?

    - by Bubba88
    I've read in Wikipedia that neural-network functions defined on a field of arbitrary real/rational numbers (along with algorithmic schemas, and the speculative `transrecursive' models) have more computational power than the computers we use today. Of course it was a page of russian wikipedia (ru.wikipedia.org) and that may be not properly proven, but that's not the only source of such.. rumors Now, the thing that I really do not understand is: How can a string-rewriting machine (NNs are exactly string-rewriting machines just as Turing machines are; only programming language is different) be more powerful than a universally capable U-machine? Yes, the descriptive instrument is really different, but the fact is that any function of such class can be (easily or not) turned to be a legal Turing-machine. Am I wrong? Do I miss something important? What is the cause of people saying that? I do know that the fenomenum of undecidability is widely accepted today (though not consistently proven according to what I've read), but I do not really see a smallest chance of NNs being able to solve that particular problem. Add-in: Not consistently proven according to what I've read - I meant that you might want to take a look at A. Zenkin's (russian mathematician) papers after mid-90-s where he persuasively postulates the wrongness of G. Cantor's concepts, including transfinite sets, uncountable sets, diagonalization method (method used in the proof of undecidability by Turing) and maybe others. Even Goedel's incompletness theorems were proven in right way in only 21-st century.. That's all just to plug Zenkin's work to the post cause I don't know how widespread that knowledge is in CS community so forgive me if that did look stupid. Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Really minimum lisp

    - by Mgccl
    What is the minimum set of primitives required such that a language is Turing complete and a lisp variant? Seems like car, cdr and some flow control and something for REPL is enough. It be nice if there is such list. Assume there are only 3 types of data, integers, symbols and lists.(like in picolisp)

    Read the article

  • The Immerman-Szelepcsenyi Theorem

    - by Daniel Lorch
    In the Immerman-Szelepcsenyi Theorem, two algorithms are specified that use non-determinisim. There is a rather lengthy algorithm using "inductive counting", which determines the number of reachable configurations for a given non-deterministic turing machine. The algorithm looks like this: Let m_{i+1}=0 For all configurations C Let b=0, r=0 For all configurations D Guess a path from I to D in at most i steps If found Let r=r+1 If D=C or D goes to C in 1 step Let b=1 If r<m_i halt and reject Let m_{i+1}=m_{i+1}+b I is the starting configuration. m_i is the number of configurations reachable from the starting configuration in i steps. This algorithm only calculates the "next step", i.e. m_i+1 from m_i. This seems pretty reasonable, but since we have nondeterminisim, why don't we just write: Let m_i = 0 For all configurations C Guess a path from I to C in at most i steps If found m_i = m_i + 1 What is wrong with this algorithm? I am using nondeterminism to guess a path from I to C, and I verify reachability I am iterating through the list of ALL configurations, so I am sure to not miss any configuration I respect space bounds I can generate a certificate (the list of reachable configs) I believe I have a misunderstanding of the "power" of non-determinisim, but I can't figure out where to look next. I am stuck on this for quite a while and I would really appreciate any help.

    Read the article

  • Creating a computer with pencil and paper [closed]

    - by Justian Meyer
    This concept has been brought to my attention before, but many people might know it from this popular comic here, where he uses stones instead of points on a paper. This concept is so abstract to me. A full-functioning computer that can manage algorithms, input, output, etc. without electricity? Surely, it's difficult to visualize because my definition of a computer is not exactly what the word sounds like COMPUTE-ER. Can someone help me bring the concept to light - the understanding, how to make one, etc? It seems like it'd be an interesting read, although I think I wouldn't be able to make it do anything. Many thanks in advance for responses. I've tried searching Google, but all I got were ways to diagram code and chart ideas. -.Justian.

    Read the article

  • Turing's Craft exercise stumped me... seems too easy.

    - by Chris
    "Write a for loop that prints the integers 1 through 40, separated by spaces or new lines. You may use only one variable, count which has already been declared as an integer." So I use... for(count = 1; count <= 40; count++) { cout << " " << count; } but they are using stdio.h as the only header and cout is not recognized. It hints that the output format should be (" ",count), but I can't figure out what print function to use. stdio.h can use fprintf or fwrite, but I don't have enough parameters for either function. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • A Guided Tour of Complexity

    - by JoshReuben
    I just re-read Complexity – A Guided Tour by Melanie Mitchell , protégé of Douglas Hofstadter ( author of “Gödel, Escher, Bach”) http://www.amazon.com/Complexity-Guided-Tour-Melanie-Mitchell/dp/0199798109/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339744329&sr=8-1 here are some notes and links:   Evolved from Cybernetics, General Systems Theory, Synergetics some interesting transdisciplinary fields to investigate: Chaos Theory - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory – small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible. System Dynamics / Cybernetics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_Dynamics – study of how feedback changes system behavior Network Theory - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_theory – leverage Graph Theory to analyze symmetric  / asymmetric relations between discrete objects Algebraic Topology - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_topology – leverage abstract algebra to analyze topological spaces There are limits to deterministic systems & to computation. Chaos Theory definitely applies to training an ANN (artificial neural network) – different weights will emerge depending upon the random selection of the training set. In recursive Non-Linear systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_system – output is not directly inferable from input. E.g. a Logistic map: Xt+1 = R Xt(1-Xt) Different types of bifurcations, attractor states and oscillations may occur – e.g. a Lorenz Attractor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_system Feigenbaum Constants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feigenbaum_constants express ratios in a bifurcation diagram for a non-linear map – the convergent limit of R (the rate of period-doubling bifurcations) is 4.6692016 Maxwell’s Demon - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon - the Second Law of Thermodynamics has only a statistical certainty – the universe (and thus information) tends towards entropy. While any computation can theoretically be done without expending energy, with finite memory, the act of erasing memory is permanent and increases entropy. Life & thought is a counter-example to the universe’s tendency towards entropy. Leo Szilard and later Claude Shannon came up with the Information Theory of Entropy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory) whereby Shannon entropy quantifies the expected value of a message’s information in bits in order to determine channel capacity and leverage Coding Theory (compression analysis). Ludwig Boltzmann came up with Statistical Mechanics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_mechanics – whereby our Newtonian perception of continuous reality is a probabilistic and statistical aggregate of many discrete quantum microstates. This is relevant for Quantum Information Theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_information and the Physics of Information - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information. Hilbert’s Problems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_problems pondered whether mathematics is complete, consistent, and decidable (the Decision Problem – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entscheidungsproblem – is there always an algorithm that can determine whether a statement is true).  Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems  proved that mathematics cannot be both complete and consistent (e.g. “This statement is not provable”). Turing through the use of Turing Machines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine symbol processors that can prove mathematical statements) and Universal Turing Machines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine Turing Machines that can emulate other any Turing Machine via accepting programs as well as data as input symbols) that computation is limited by demonstrating the Halting Problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem (is is not possible to know when a program will complete – you cannot build an infinite loop detector). You may be used to thinking of 1 / 2 / 3 dimensional systems, but Fractal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal systems are defined by self-similarity & have non-integer Hausdorff Dimensions !!!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fractals_by_Hausdorff_dimension – the fractal dimension quantifies the number of copies of a self similar object at each level of detail – eg Koch Snowflake - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_snowflake Definitions of complexity: size, Shannon entropy, Algorithmic Information Content (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_information_theory - size of shortest program that can generate a description of an object) Logical depth (amount of info processed), thermodynamic depth (resources required). Complexity is statistical and fractal. John Von Neumann’s other machine was the Self-Reproducing Automaton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_machine  . Cellular Automata http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton are alternative form of Universal Turing machine to traditional Von Neumann machines where grid cells are locally synchronized with their neighbors according to a rule. Conway’s Game of Life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life demonstrates various emergent constructs such as “Glider Guns” and “Spaceships”. Cellular Automatons are not practical because logical ops require a large number of cells – wasteful & inefficient. There are no compilers or general program languages available for Cellular Automatons (as far as I am aware). Random Boolean Networks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_network are extensions of cellular automata where nodes are connected at random (not to spatial neighbors) and each node has its own rule –> they demonstrate the emergence of complex  & self organized behavior. Stephen Wolfram’s (creator of Mathematica, so give him the benefit of the doubt) New Kind of Science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science proposes the universe may be a discrete Finite State Automata http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite-state_machine whereby reality emerges from simple rules. I am 2/3 through this book. It is feasible that the universe is quantum discrete at the plank scale and that it computes itself – Digital Physics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics – a simulated reality? Anyway, all behavior is supposedly derived from simple algorithmic rules & falls into 4 patterns: uniform , nested / cyclical, random (Rule 30 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_30) & mixed (Rule 110 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_110 localized structures – it is this that is interesting). interaction between colliding propagating signal inputs is then information processing. Wolfram proposes the Principle of Computational Equivalence - http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrincipleofComputationalEquivalence.html - all processes that are not obviously simple can be viewed as computations of equivalent sophistication. Meaning in information may emerge from analogy & conceptual slippages – see the CopyCat program: http://cognitrn.psych.indiana.edu/rgoldsto/courses/concepts/copycat.pdf Scale Free Networks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale-free_network have a distribution governed by a Power Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law - much more common than Normal Distribution). They are characterized by hubs (resilience to random deletion of nodes), heterogeneity of degree values, self similarity, & small world structure. They grow via preferential attachment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_attachment – tipping points triggered by positive feedback loops. 2 theories of cascading system failures in complex systems are Self-Organized Criticality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality and Highly Optimized Tolerance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_optimized_tolerance. Computational Mechanics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_mechanics – use of computational methods to study phenomena governed by the principles of mechanics. This book is a great intuition pump, but does not cover the more mathematical subject of Computational Complexity Theory – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_complexity_theory I am currently reading this book on this subject: http://www.amazon.com/Computational-Complexity-Christos-H-Papadimitriou/dp/0201530821/ref=pd_sim_b_1   stay tuned for that review!

    Read the article

  • What kinds of demos are good to make for a software engineer job

    - by user23012
    I have created my cv site and sent out my demos for a while now, but most of my demos are either from my course or games related since my course was a games programming course, I was wondering what kind of demos are good to show off my skills in programming in general. These are what i already have Pennies:just a simple game first coursework i did. Compiler:coursework for compiler writing module Pongout: basic a pong game in 68k using colour detection Snake: snake in 68k same thing as the pong Game Cube Maze: gamecube work BeatmyBot: basic Ai Basic plat-former game: 2d game with different types of collision Turing Lambda Simulation: my dissertation Turing machine simulated in Miranda. alpha and Beta reduction,and SKI calculus simulated in the Turing machine. What I am asking here is what kind of demos are good to add or have, i have been looking and have hit a tough spot I cant think of anything to make more than games. so for a general graduate software engineer what types would be good examples? EDIT: since responding to the comments bellow well for what languages well my main one would be C++, followed by Java, Erlang and abit of Haskell

    Read the article

  • Objective-measures of the expressiveness of programming languages [closed]

    - by Casebash
    I am very interested in the expressiveness of different languages. Everyone who has programmed in multiple languages knows that sometimes a language allows you to express concepts which you can't express in other languages. You can have all kinds of subjective discussion about this, but naturally it would be better to have an objective measure. There do actually exist objective measures. One is Turing-Completeness, which means that a language is capable of generating any output that could be generated by following a sequential set of steps. There are also other lesser levels of expressiveness such as Finite State Automata. Now, except for domain specific languages, pretty much all modern languages are Turing complete. It is therefore natural to ask the following question: Can we can define any other formal measures of expressiveness which are greater than Turing completeness? Now of course we can't define this by considering the output that a program can generate, as Turing machines can already produce the same output that any other program can. But there are definitely different levels in what concepts can be expressed - surely no-one would argue that assembly language is as powerful as a modern object oriented language like Python. You could use your assembly to write a Python interpreter, so clearly any accurate objective measure would have to exclude this possibility. This also causes a problem with trying to define the expressiveness using the minimum number of symbols. How exactly to do so is not clear and indeed appears extremely difficult, but we can't assume that just because we don't know how to solve a problem, that nobody know how to. It is also doesn't really make sense to demand a definition of expressiveness before answering the question - after all the whole point of this question is to obtain such a definition. I think that my explanation will be clear enough for anyone with a strong theoretical background in computer science to understand what I am looking for. If you do have such a background and you disagree, please comment why, but if you don't thats probably why you don't understand the question.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5  | Next Page >