|
|
|
|
|
|
by charles-salvia
3339 days ago
|
|
|
>> Our brains are fallible, and so only approximately equivalent to Turing machines; and even ignoring that can only compute every computable thing given both infinite error-free storage capacity (which they don't have internally or externally) and sufficient time to execute the necessary steps of the computation. So are actual computers. They're just "less fallible" and closer to a Universal Turing Machine than human brains in certain ways. A Commodore 64 is also incapable, in practice, of computing certain computable functions, due to memory limitations and what have you, but nobody would really claim a Commodore 64 is not Turing complete. |
|
|
Sure, but no one was making claims about actual computers other than the human brain that requires pointing that out.
> but nobody would really claim a Commodore 64 is not Turing complete.
Actually, it's a rather common observation that real-world computers are not Turing complete (languages, considered independent of the limitations of concrete machines, may be) and particularly that concrete machines with limited storage space and operating with finite time constraints may not be able to compute all computable results, even though the abstract model they approximate, without those limitations, can.