🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2861@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:

|If you want to get theoretical, then you can _theoretically_ keep
|buying tapes until the world's supply of tape runs out.  Then you can
|manufacture more.  When you use up all the earth's supply of materials
|for making tapes, you can build mining space ships.  The question of
|whether a computer is a finite-state device or not boils down to the
|question of whether the universe holds a finite amount of material for
|making tape.  In this case whether you believe that a computer is a
|finite-state device depends on whether you believe there is a finite
|amount of matter in the universe.

There is definitely and without question a finite amount of matter in
the universe that I am willing to make tapes out of.

For more than a finite amount of matter to become available to us on a
timescale in which we are in an energetic position to make some use of
it, would require certain (IMHO unlikely) breakthroughs in physics.

|The question of whether an electronic computer is an FSA or an
|infinite-state device is not as trivial as most people seem to think.

Evidently, I disagree. I am PERSONALLY willing to engineer my
compilers on the assumption that (a) FTL travel, (b) many-worlds
parallelism and (c) anything comparably revolutionary will not become
available within the useful lifetime of the software.

And even WITH those breakthroughs, I still think computers would for
the most part remain finite, making finite computation a useful field
of research.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
stephen p spackman         Center for Information and Language Studies
systems analyst                                  University of Chicago
----------------------------------------------------------------------