Article View: comp.ai
Article #1162Re: Reasons why you don't prove your programs are correct
From: Joe Keane
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1990 22:34
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1990 22:34
14 lines
1495 bytes
1495 bytes
In article <1862@mrsvr.UUCP> hallett@gemed.ge.com (Jeffrey A. Hallett (414) 548-5163) writes: >Similarly, parallel-processing is just a bunch of sequential steps happening >together. You want something that can't be simulated on a Turing machine. You're right that adding parallelism doesn't change anything, although i don't know what would. Suppose you have a massively parallel optical computer that can compute very complex functions in very small space, and can do computations at different frequencies in the same space, and is also very big to boot. Even this could be simulated by a Turing machine, it's true. But i don't think it's a useful way to think about it. It hides a lot of the important properties of the computer. So, what is a good way to think about it? Hard to say, since i've never used such a thing.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1861@osc.COM>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!oliveb!amdahl!pacbell!osc!jgkReferences:
<25711@cup.portal.com> <1449@krafla.rhi.hi.is> <1990Jan11.015531.20996@world.std.com> <9220@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <1862@mrsvr.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!oliveb!amdahl!pacbell!osc!jgk From: jgk@osc.COM (Joe Keane) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Reasons why you don't prove your programs are correct Summary: Parallel processing is much different, but still Turing compatible. Keywords: parallel processing Message-ID: <1861@osc.COM> Date: 14 Jan 90 22:34:44 GMT References: <25711@cup.portal.com> <1449@krafla.rhi.hi.is> <1990Jan11.015531.20996@world.std.com> <9220@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <1862@mrsvr.UUCP> Reply-To: jgk@osc.COM (Joe Keane) Organization: Object Sciences Corp., Menlo Park, CA Lines: 14