Implementation of a Turing Machine? [message #363856] |
Sun, 18 February 2018 18:02 |
|
Originally posted by: Gareth's Downstairs Computer
I wonder if there are any electronic implementations
of a Turing Machine, especially one that allows
for state machine realisation to control it?
One of the intriguing limitations of such machines
is that any problem that cannot be solved will result
in a failure of the machine to halt, but that does not
gel with the human brain for we can determine that
a problem is insoluble and yet our brains do not halt!
|
|
|
Re: Implementation of a Turing Machine? [message #363866 is a reply to message #363856] |
Mon, 19 February 2018 02:26 |
Gene Wirchenko
Messages: 1166 Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 23:02:53 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
<headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I wonder if there are any electronic implementations
> of a Turing Machine, especially one that allows
> for state machine realisation to control it?
>
> One of the intriguing limitations of such machines
> is that any problem that cannot be solved will result
> in a failure of the machine to halt, but that does not
> gel with the human brain for we can determine that
> a problem is insoluble and yet our brains do not halt!
You might be interested in this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo8izCKHiF0
Mechanical Turing Machine in Wood
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
|
|
|
Re: Implementation of a Turing Machine? [message #363876 is a reply to message #363866] |
Mon, 19 February 2018 04:11 |
|
Originally posted by: Gareth's Downstairs Computer
On 19/02/2018 07:26, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 23:02:53 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
> <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I wonder if there are any electronic implementations
>> of a Turing Machine, especially one that allows
>> for state machine realisation to control it?
>>
>> One of the intriguing limitations of such machines
>> is that any problem that cannot be solved will result
>> in a failure of the machine to halt, but that does not
>> gel with the human brain for we can determine that
>> a problem is insoluble and yet our brains do not halt!
>
> You might be interested in this:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo8izCKHiF0
> Mechanical Turing Machine in Wood
WOW!
Bookmarked to watch again and again!
Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
have been built with the technology available at the time
it was first postualted (1935?)
|
|
|
Re: Implementation of a Turing Machine? [message #363891 is a reply to message #363876] |
Mon, 19 February 2018 14:59 |
Jon Elson
Messages: 646 Registered: April 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
> It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
> have been built with the technology available at the time
> it was first postualted (1935?)
A simple Turing machine could have definitely been built in 1935, using
vacuum tubes and relays. But, when Turing proposed it, is was the intention
that it be really "stupid" to prove the point that all computers that
posessed certain abilities were equivalent, ie. they could solve the same
problems, but not necessarily in the same elapsed time.
So, when all this electronic hardware was expensive and cumbersome, it made
more sense to use it to make practical computers.
Although the Atanasoff-Berry "computer" was not built until, I think,
1938-39, there was nothing in it that was not available a decade before
that. (I say "computer", because by the Turing definition, it was not
stored-program and could only skip instructions, no branching was possible.)
But, with the technology in the ABC, it COULD have been expanded to a stored
program computer with branching.
Jon
|
|
|
Re: Implementation of a Turing Machine? [message #363905 is a reply to message #363876] |
Mon, 19 February 2018 23:39 |
Gene Wirchenko
Messages: 1166 Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:11:12 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
<headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 19/02/2018 07:26, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 23:02:53 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>> <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder if there are any electronic implementations
>>> of a Turing Machine, especially one that allows
>>> for state machine realisation to control it?
>>>
>>> One of the intriguing limitations of such machines
>>> is that any problem that cannot be solved will result
>>> in a failure of the machine to halt, but that does not
>>> gel with the human brain for we can determine that
>>> a problem is insoluble and yet our brains do not halt!
>>
>> You might be interested in this:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo8izCKHiF0
>> Mechanical Turing Machine in Wood
>
> WOW!
>
> Bookmarked to watch again and again!
I am glad you liked it.
> Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
> each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
> write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
>
> It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
> have been built with the technology available at the time
> it was first postualted (1935?)
I do not think that that is that notable. The machine could have
been made back in Babbage's time. (Too bad Babbage did not come up
with something more immediately practical.)
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
|
|
|
Re: Implementation of a Turing Machine? [message #363947 is a reply to message #363905] |
Wed, 21 February 2018 06:13 |
mausg
Messages: 2483 Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-02-20, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:11:12 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
> <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 19/02/2018 07:26, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>> Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
>> each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
>> write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
>>
>> It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
>> have been built with the technology available at the time
>> it was first postualted (1935?)
>
> I do not think that that is that notable. The machine could have
> been made back in Babbage's time. (Too bad Babbage did not come up
> with something more immediately practical.)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
AFAIhaveread, the problem was that it not possible to machine parts to
the limits that Babbage's machines needed, at that time.
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
Re: Implementation of a Turing Machine? [message #363963 is a reply to message #363947] |
Wed, 21 February 2018 12:48 |
Gene Wirchenko
Messages: 1166 Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 21 Feb 2018 11:13:54 GMT, maus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2018-02-20, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:11:12 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>> <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/02/2018 07:26, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>
>>> Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
>>> each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
>>> write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
>>>
>>> It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
>>> have been built with the technology available at the time
>>> it was first postualted (1935?)
>>
>> I do not think that that is that notable. The machine could have
>> been made back in Babbage's time. (Too bad Babbage did not come up
>> with something more immediately practical.)
> AFAIhaveread, the problem was that it not possible to machine parts to
> the limits that Babbage's machines needed, at that time.
I was thinking of that plus that Babbage did not get something
practical going. That might have helped get mechanical computing
going big.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
|
|
|
Re: Implementation of a Turing Machine? [message #363964 is a reply to message #363963] |
Wed, 21 February 2018 13:11 |
Michael N. LeVine
Messages: 40 Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On 2018-02-21 17:48:34 +0000, Gene Wirchenko said:
> On 21 Feb 2018 11:13:54 GMT, maus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2018-02-20, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:11:12 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>> <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19/02/2018 07:26, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
>>>> each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
>>>> write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
>>>>
>>>> It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
>>>> have been built with the technology available at the time
>>>> it was first postualted (1935?)
>>>
>>> I do not think that that is that notable. The machine could have
>>> been made back in Babbage's time. (Too bad Babbage did not come up
>>> with something more immediately practical.)
>
>> AFAIhaveread, the problem was that it not possible to machine parts to
>> the limits that Babbage's machines needed, at that time.
>
> I was thinking of that plus that Babbage did not get something
> practical going. That might have helped get mechanical computing
> going big.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
His difference engine was built tothe same tolerance's that were
available in his time,
and it worked as designed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be1EM3gQkAY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlbQsKpq3Ak
--
Michael LeVine
mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com
Politics is the art of looking for trouble,
finding it everywhere,
diagnosing it incorrectly,
and applying the wrong remedies.
Groucho Marx
|
|
|
Re: Implementation of a Turing Machine? [message #363965 is a reply to message #363964] |
Wed, 21 February 2018 13:17 |
|
Originally posted by: JimP
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:11:05 -0800, Michael LeVine
<mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> wrote:
> On 2018-02-21 17:48:34 +0000, Gene Wirchenko said:
>
>> On 21 Feb 2018 11:13:54 GMT, maus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-02-20, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:11:12 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>>> <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On 19/02/2018 07:26, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
>>>> > each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
>>>> > write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
>>>> >
>>>> > It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
>>>> > have been built with the technology available at the time
>>>> > it was first postualted (1935?)
>>>>
>>>> I do not think that that is that notable. The machine could have
>>>> been made back in Babbage's time. (Too bad Babbage did not come up
>>>> with something more immediately practical.)
>>
>>> AFAIhaveread, the problem was that it not possible to machine parts to
>>> the limits that Babbage's machines needed, at that time.
>>
>> I was thinking of that plus that Babbage did not get something
>> practical going. That might have helped get mechanical computing
>> going big.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Gene Wirchenko
>
> His difference engine was built tothe same tolerance's that were
> available in his time,
> and it worked as designed.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be1EM3gQkAY
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlbQsKpq3Ak
The antikythera mechanism was built to very tight tolerances and
worked.
|
|
|
Re: Implementation of a Turing Machine? [message #363966 is a reply to message #363947] |
Wed, 21 February 2018 13:34 |
Joe Pfeiffer
Messages: 764 Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
maus <mausg@mail.com> writes:
> On 2018-02-20, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:11:12 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>> <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/02/2018 07:26, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>
>>> Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
>>> each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
>>> write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
>>>
>>> It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
>>> have been built with the technology available at the time
>>> it was first postualted (1935?)
>>
>> I do not think that that is that notable. The machine could have
>> been made back in Babbage's time. (Too bad Babbage did not come up
>> with something more immediately practical.)
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Gene Wirchenko
>
> AFAIhaveread, the problem was that it not possible to machine parts to
> the limits that Babbage's machines needed, at that time.
No, it's been pretty well established they could have been. The problem
was that he never froze his design.
|
|
|
|
Re: Implementation of a Turing Machine? [message #363977 is a reply to message #363965] |
Wed, 21 February 2018 16:02 |
mausg
Messages: 2483 Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-02-21, JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:11:05 -0800, Michael LeVine
> <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2018-02-21 17:48:34 +0000, Gene Wirchenko said:
>>
>>> On 21 Feb 2018 11:13:54 GMT, maus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2018-02-20, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>>>> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:11:12 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>>> > <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 19/02/2018 07:26, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
>>>> >> each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
>>>> >> write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
>>>> >> have been built with the technology available at the time
>>>> >> it was first postualted (1935?)
>>>> >
>>>> > I do not think that that is that notable. The machine could have
>>>> > been made back in Babbage's time. (Too bad Babbage did not come up
>>>> > with something more immediately practical.)
>>>
>>>> AFAIhaveread, the problem was that it not possible to machine parts to
>>>> the limits that Babbage's machines needed, at that time.
>>>
>>> I was thinking of that plus that Babbage did not get something
>>> practical going. That might have helped get mechanical computing
>>> going big.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Gene Wirchenko
>>
>> His difference engine was built tothe same tolerance's that were
>> available in his time,
>> and it worked as designed.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be1EM3gQkAY
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlbQsKpq3Ak
>
> The antikythera mechanism was built to very tight tolerances and
> worked.
CITE:?
What was it for?
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
Re: Implementation of a Turing Machine? [message #363978 is a reply to message #363975] |
Wed, 21 February 2018 16:03 |
mausg
Messages: 2483 Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-02-21, Gareth's Downstairs Computer <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 21/02/2018 18:17, JimP wrote:
>> The antikythera mechanism was built to very tight tolerances and
>> worked.
>
>
> ... but there has to have some play / slop / backlash in it
> because the gear teeth are triangular and not of a shape giving
> constant velocity, such as invoule or cycloidal form;
>
>
I suppose it depends on the precision neded.
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
Re: Implementation of a Turing Machine? [message #363979 is a reply to message #363966] |
Wed, 21 February 2018 16:04 |
mausg
Messages: 2483 Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-02-21, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
> maus <mausg@mail.com> writes:
>
>> On 2018-02-20, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:11:12 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>> <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19/02/2018 07:26, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
>>>> each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
>>>> write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
>>>>
>>>> It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
>>>> have been built with the technology available at the time
>>>> it was first postualted (1935?)
>>>
>>> I do not think that that is that notable. The machine could have
>>> been made back in Babbage's time. (Too bad Babbage did not come up
>>> with something more immediately practical.)
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Gene Wirchenko
>>
>> AFAIhaveread, the problem was that it not possible to machine parts to
>> the limits that Babbage's machines needed, at that time.
>
> No, it's been pretty well established they could have been. The problem
> was that he never froze his design.
In that he was not the last :)
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
Re: Implementation of a Turing Machine? [message #363980 is a reply to message #363947] |
Wed, 21 February 2018 16:05 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399 Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 4:13:55 AM UTC-7, maus wrote:
> AFAIhaveread, the problem was that it not possible to machine parts to
> the limits that Babbage's machines needed, at that time.
Arthur C. Clarke claimed this in _Profiles of the Future_. However, since
Babbage's Analytical Engine was a digital computer, not an analogue computer, it
should have been possible, with conservative design, to get one to work even if
one had to make do with poor-quality machining.
Konrad Zuse's first working computer, although made in a very different manner,
was mechanical.
John Savard
|
|
|
Re: Implementation of a Turing Machine? [message #363986 is a reply to message #363965] |
Wed, 21 February 2018 16:20 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:11:05 -0800, Michael LeVine
> <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2018-02-21 17:48:34 +0000, Gene Wirchenko said:
>>
>>> On 21 Feb 2018 11:13:54 GMT, maus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2018-02-20, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>>>> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:11:12 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>>> > <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 19/02/2018 07:26, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
>>>> >> each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
>>>> >> write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
>>>> >> have been built with the technology available at the time
>>>> >> it was first postualted (1935?)
>>>> >
>>>> > I do not think that that is that notable. The machine could have
>>>> > been made back in Babbage's time. (Too bad Babbage did not come up
>>>> > with something more immediately practical.)
>>>
>>>> AFAIhaveread, the problem was that it not possible to machine parts to
>>>> the limits that Babbage's machines needed, at that time.
>>>
>>> I was thinking of that plus that Babbage did not get something
>>> practical going. That might have helped get mechanical computing
>>> going big.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Gene Wirchenko
>>
>> His difference engine was built tothe same tolerance's that were
>> available in his time,
>> and it worked as designed.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be1EM3gQkAY
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlbQsKpq3Ak
>
> The antikythera mechanism was built to very tight tolerances and
> worked.
>
And, I think, the gear teeth were filed by hand. I don't believe gear
cutting machinery had not yet been invented.
--
Pete
|
|
|
Re: Implementation of a Turing Machine? [message #363987 is a reply to message #363977] |
Wed, 21 February 2018 16:20 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
maus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2018-02-21, JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:11:05 -0800, Michael LeVine
>> <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-02-21 17:48:34 +0000, Gene Wirchenko said:
>>>
>>>> On 21 Feb 2018 11:13:54 GMT, maus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On 2018-02-20, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>>>> >> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:11:12 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>>> >> <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On 19/02/2018 07:26, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
>>>> >>> each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
>>>> >>> write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
>>>> >>> have been built with the technology available at the time
>>>> >>> it was first postualted (1935?)
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I do not think that that is that notable. The machine could have
>>>> >> been made back in Babbage's time. (Too bad Babbage did not come up
>>>> >> with something more immediately practical.)
>>>>
>>>> > AFAIhaveread, the problem was that it not possible to machine parts to
>>>> > the limits that Babbage's machines needed, at that time.
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking of that plus that Babbage did not get something
>>>> practical going. That might have helped get mechanical computing
>>>> going big.
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> Gene Wirchenko
>>>
>>> His difference engine was built tothe same tolerance's that were
>>> available in his time,
>>> and it worked as designed.
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be1EM3gQkAY
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlbQsKpq3Ak
>>
>> The antikythera mechanism was built to very tight tolerances and
>> worked.
>
> CITE:?
>
> What was it for?
>
Predicting eclipses, IIRC.
--
Pete
|
|
|
Re: Implementation of a Turing Machine? [message #363991 is a reply to message #363977] |
Wed, 21 February 2018 17:13 |
|
Originally posted by: JimP
On 21 Feb 2018 21:02:43 GMT, maus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2018-02-21, JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:11:05 -0800, Michael LeVine
>> <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-02-21 17:48:34 +0000, Gene Wirchenko said:
>>>
>>>> On 21 Feb 2018 11:13:54 GMT, maus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On 2018-02-20, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>>>> >> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:11:12 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>>> >> <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On 19/02/2018 07:26, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
>>>> >>> each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
>>>> >>> write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
>>>> >>> have been built with the technology available at the time
>>>> >>> it was first postualted (1935?)
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I do not think that that is that notable. The machine could have
>>>> >> been made back in Babbage's time. (Too bad Babbage did not come up
>>>> >> with something more immediately practical.)
>>>>
>>>> > AFAIhaveread, the problem was that it not possible to machine parts to
>>>> > the limits that Babbage's machines needed, at that time.
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking of that plus that Babbage did not get something
>>>> practical going. That might have helped get mechanical computing
>>>> going big.
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> Gene Wirchenko
>>>
>>> His difference engine was built tothe same tolerance's that were
>>> available in his time,
>>> and it worked as designed.
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be1EM3gQkAY
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlbQsKpq3Ak
>>
>> The antikythera mechanism was built to very tight tolerances and
>> worked.
>
> CITE:?
>
> What was it for?
I had no idea anyone in here didn't know what the anikythera mechanism
was.
http://antikythera-mechanism.gr/
http://www.antikythera-mechanism.com/
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/decoding-antikythera- mechanism-first-computer-180953979/
https://www.livescience.com/1166-scientists-unravel-mystery- ancient-greek-machine.html
And likely at least 50 more.
|
|
|
Re: Implementation of a Turing Machine? [message #363992 is a reply to message #363986] |
Wed, 21 February 2018 17:14 |
|
Originally posted by: JimP
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 14:20:08 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:11:05 -0800, Michael LeVine
>> <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-02-21 17:48:34 +0000, Gene Wirchenko said:
>>>
>>>> On 21 Feb 2018 11:13:54 GMT, maus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On 2018-02-20, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>>>> >> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:11:12 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>>> >> <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On 19/02/2018 07:26, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
>>>> >>> each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
>>>> >>> write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
>>>> >>> have been built with the technology available at the time
>>>> >>> it was first postualted (1935?)
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I do not think that that is that notable. The machine could have
>>>> >> been made back in Babbage's time. (Too bad Babbage did not come up
>>>> >> with something more immediately practical.)
>>>>
>>>> > AFAIhaveread, the problem was that it not possible to machine parts to
>>>> > the limits that Babbage's machines needed, at that time.
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking of that plus that Babbage did not get something
>>>> practical going. That might have helped get mechanical computing
>>>> going big.
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> Gene Wirchenko
>>>
>>> His difference engine was built tothe same tolerance's that were
>>> available in his time,
>>> and it worked as designed.
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be1EM3gQkAY
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlbQsKpq3Ak
>>
>> The antikythera mechanism was built to very tight tolerances and
>> worked.
>>
>
> And, I think, the gear teeth were filed by hand. I don't believe gear
> cutting machinery had not yet been invented.
I've watched a documentary by a model maker in England who did just
that to make the gears.
|
|
|
Re: Implementation of a Turing Machine? [message #363996 is a reply to message #363991] |
Wed, 21 February 2018 18:05 |
mausg
Messages: 2483 Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-02-21, JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2018 21:02:43 GMT, maus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2018-02-21, JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:11:05 -0800, Michael LeVine
>>> <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2018-02-21 17:48:34 +0000, Gene Wirchenko said:
>>>>
>>>> > On 21 Feb 2018 11:13:54 GMT, maus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 2018-02-20, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>>>> >>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:11:12 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>>> >>> <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> On 19/02/2018 07:26, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
>>>> >>>> each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
>>>> >>>> write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
>>>> >>>> have been built with the technology available at the time
>>>> >>>> it was first postualted (1935?)
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I do not think that that is that notable. The machine could have
>>>> >>> been made back in Babbage's time. (Too bad Babbage did not come up
>>>> >>> with something more immediately practical.)
>>>> >
>>>> >> AFAIhaveread, the problem was that it not possible to machine parts to
>>>> >> the limits that Babbage's machines needed, at that time.
>>>> >
>>>> > I was thinking of that plus that Babbage did not get something
>>>> > practical going. That might have helped get mechanical computing
>>>> > going big.
>>>> >
>>>> > Sincerely,
>>>> >
>>>> > Gene Wirchenko
>>>>
>>>> His difference engine was built tothe same tolerance's that were
>>>> available in his time,
>>>> and it worked as designed.
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be1EM3gQkAY
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlbQsKpq3Ak
>>>
>>> The antikythera mechanism was built to very tight tolerances and
>>> worked.
>>
>> CITE:?
>>
>> What was it for?
>
> I had no idea anyone in here didn't know what the anikythera mechanism
> was.
>
> http://antikythera-mechanism.gr/
>
> http://www.antikythera-mechanism.com/
>
> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/decoding-antikythera- mechanism-first-computer-180953979/
>
> https://www.livescience.com/1166-scientists-unravel-mystery- ancient-greek-machine.html
>
> And likely at least 50 more.
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
Re: Implementation of a Turing Machine? [message #364021 is a reply to message #363965] |
Thu, 22 February 2018 08:37 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173 Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
JimP wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:11:05 -0800, Michael LeVine
> <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2018-02-21 17:48:34 +0000, Gene Wirchenko said:
>>
>>> On 21 Feb 2018 11:13:54 GMT, maus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2018-02-20, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>>>> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:11:12 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>>> > <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 19/02/2018 07:26, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
>>>> >> each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
>>>> >> write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
>>>> >> have been built with the technology available at the time
>>>> >> it was first postualted (1935?)
>>>> >
>>>> > I do not think that that is that notable. The machine could have
>>>> > been made back in Babbage's time. (Too bad Babbage did not come up
>>>> > with something more immediately practical.)
>>>
>>>> AFAIhaveread, the problem was that it not possible to machine parts to
>>>> the limits that Babbage's machines needed, at that time.
>>>
>>> I was thinking of that plus that Babbage did not get something
>>> practical going. That might have helped get mechanical computing
>>> going big.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Gene Wirchenko
>>
>> His difference engine was built tothe same tolerance's that were
>> available in his time,
>> and it worked as designed.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be1EM3gQkAY
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlbQsKpq3Ak
>
> The antikythera mechanism was built to very tight tolerances and
> worked.
I didn't know that someone actuallly figured out how to make one.
Nice PhD project :-)
/BAH
|
|
|
Re: Implementation of a Turing Machine? [message #364040 is a reply to message #363966] |
Thu, 22 February 2018 13:53 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313 Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-02-21, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
> maus <mausg@mail.com> writes:
>
>> On 2018-02-20, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:11:12 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>> <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
>>>> each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
>>>> write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
>>>>
>>>> It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
>>>> have been built with the technology available at the time
>>>> it was first postualted (1935?)
>>>
>>> I do not think that that is that notable. The machine could have
>>> been made back in Babbage's time. (Too bad Babbage did not come up
>>> with something more immediately practical.)
>>
>> AFAIhaveread, the problem was that it not possible to machine parts to
>> the limits that Babbage's machines needed, at that time.
>
> No, it's been pretty well established they could have been. The problem
> was that he never froze his design.
Ah, some things never change.
Frozen specs and the Abominable Snowman have a lot in common:
both are myths, and both melt when enough heat is applied.
-- unknown
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
Re: Implementation of a Turing Machine? [message #364041 is a reply to message #364040] |
Thu, 22 February 2018 14:14 |
Michael N. LeVine
Messages: 40 Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On 2018-02-22 18:53:48 +0000, Charlie Gibbs said:
> On 2018-02-21, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>
>> maus <mausg@mail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 2018-02-20, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:11:12 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>>> <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
>>>> > each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
>>>> > write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
>>>> >
>>>> > It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
>>>> > have been built with the technology available at the time
>>>> > it was first postualted (1935?)
>>>>
>>>> I do not think that that is that notable. The machine could have
>>>> been made back in Babbage's time. (Too bad Babbage did not come up
>>>> with something more immediately practical.)
>>>
>>> AFAIhaveread, the problem was that it not possible to machine parts to
>>> the limits that Babbage's machines needed, at that time.
>>
>> No, it's been pretty well established they could have been. The problem
>> was that he never froze his design.
>
> Ah, some things never change.
>
> Frozen specs and the Abominable Snowman have a lot in common:
> both are myths, and both melt when enough heat is applied.
> -- unknown
That seems to be the problem that plan 28 is having trying to come up
with his design so they an build it
http://plan28.org
--
Michael LeVine
mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com
Politics is the art of looking for trouble,
finding it everywhere,
diagnosing it incorrectly,
and applying the wrong remedies.
Groucho Marx
|
|
|
Re: Implementation of a Turing Machine? [message #364080 is a reply to message #364021] |
Thu, 22 February 2018 21:14 |
|
Originally posted by: JimP
On 22 Feb 2018 13:37:29 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> JimP wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:11:05 -0800, Michael LeVine
>> <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-02-21 17:48:34 +0000, Gene Wirchenko said:
>>>
>>>> On 21 Feb 2018 11:13:54 GMT, maus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On 2018-02-20, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>>>> >> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:11:12 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>>> >> <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On 19/02/2018 07:26, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
>>>> >>> each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
>>>> >>> write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
>>>> >>> have been built with the technology available at the time
>>>> >>> it was first postualted (1935?)
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I do not think that that is that notable. The machine could have
>>>> >> been made back in Babbage's time. (Too bad Babbage did not come up
>>>> >> with something more immediately practical.)
>>>>
>>>> > AFAIhaveread, the problem was that it not possible to machine parts to
>>>> > the limits that Babbage's machines needed, at that time.
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking of that plus that Babbage did not get something
>>>> practical going. That might have helped get mechanical computing
>>>> going big.
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> Gene Wirchenko
>>>
>>> His difference engine was built tothe same tolerance's that were
>>> available in his time,
>>> and it worked as designed.
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be1EM3gQkAY
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlbQsKpq3Ak
>>
>> The antikythera mechanism was built to very tight tolerances and
>> worked.
>
> I didn't know that someone actuallly figured out how to make one.
> Nice PhD project :-)
>
> /BAH
There was a PhD in England who would make one, for $4,000. Shipping
not included.
|
|
|
Re: Implementation of a Turing Machine? [message #364118 is a reply to message #364080] |
Fri, 23 February 2018 10:36 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173 Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
JimP wrote:
> On 22 Feb 2018 13:37:29 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> JimP wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:11:05 -0800, Michael LeVine
>>> <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2018-02-21 17:48:34 +0000, Gene Wirchenko said:
>>>>
>>>> > On 21 Feb 2018 11:13:54 GMT, maus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 2018-02-20, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>>>> >>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:11:12 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>>> >>> <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> On 19/02/2018 07:26, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
>>>> >>>> each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
>>>> >>>> write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
>>>> >>>> have been built with the technology available at the time
>>>> >>>> it was first postualted (1935?)
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I do not think that that is that notable. The machine could have
>>>> >>> been made back in Babbage's time. (Too bad Babbage did not come up
>>>> >>> with something more immediately practical.)
>>>> >
>>>> >> AFAIhaveread, the problem was that it not possible to machine parts to
>>>> >> the limits that Babbage's machines needed, at that time.
>>>> >
>>>> > I was thinking of that plus that Babbage did not get something
>>>> > practical going. That might have helped get mechanical computing
>>>> > going big.
>>>> >
>>>> > Sincerely,
>>>> >
>>>> > Gene Wirchenko
>>>>
>>>> His difference engine was built tothe same tolerance's that were
>>>> available in his time,
>>>> and it worked as designed.
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be1EM3gQkAY
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlbQsKpq3Ak
>>>
>>> The antikythera mechanism was built to very tight tolerances and
>>> worked.
>>
>> I didn't know that someone actuallly figured out how to make one.
>> Nice PhD project :-)
>>
>> /BAH
>
> There was a PhD in England who would make one, for $4,000. Shipping
> not included.
The last time I investigated someobody was starting to try to
replicate the one found in the Mediterranean. I'm glad he
succeeded.
/BAH
|
|
|
Re: Implementation of a Turing Machine? [message #364143 is a reply to message #364118] |
Fri, 23 February 2018 14:19 |
|
Originally posted by: JimP
On 23 Feb 2018 15:36:12 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> JimP wrote:
>> On 22 Feb 2018 13:37:29 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> JimP wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:11:05 -0800, Michael LeVine
>>>> <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On 2018-02-21 17:48:34 +0000, Gene Wirchenko said:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 21 Feb 2018 11:13:54 GMT, maus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On 2018-02-20, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>>>> >>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:11:12 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>>> >>>> <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> On 19/02/2018 07:26, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
>>>> >>>>> each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
>>>> >>>>> write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
>>>> >>>>> have been built with the technology available at the time
>>>> >>>>> it was first postualted (1935?)
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> I do not think that that is that notable. The machine could have
>>>> >>>> been made back in Babbage's time. (Too bad Babbage did not come up
>>>> >>>> with something more immediately practical.)
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> AFAIhaveread, the problem was that it not possible to machine parts to
>>>> >>> the limits that Babbage's machines needed, at that time.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I was thinking of that plus that Babbage did not get something
>>>> >> practical going. That might have helped get mechanical computing
>>>> >> going big.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Sincerely,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Gene Wirchenko
>>>> >
>>>> >His difference engine was built tothe same tolerance's that were
>>>> >available in his time,
>>>> >and it worked as designed.
>>>> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be1EM3gQkAY
>>>> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlbQsKpq3Ak
>>>>
>>>> The antikythera mechanism was built to very tight tolerances and
>>>> worked.
>>>
>>> I didn't know that someone actuallly figured out how to make one.
>>> Nice PhD project :-)
>>>
>>> /BAH
>>
>> There was a PhD in England who would make one, for $4,000. Shipping
>> not included.
>
> The last time I investigated someobody was starting to try to
> replicate the one found in the Mediterranean. I'm glad he
> succeeded.
>
> /BAH
The only one I have heard of is the one found in the Mediterranean
about 1900.
|
|
|