4 ms·

The class of machines with the ‘(but obviously with a machine-bound tape)’ are even weaker than finite-state machines (because the number of states is bound by

The class of machines with the ‘(but obviously with a machine-bound tape)’ are even weaker than finite-state machines (because the number of states is bound by a fixed constant instead of "just" assumed to be finite). So if you argue that the silent ‘(but obviously with a machine-bound tape)’ assumption is OK, you argue that it is OK to identify Turing machines with a class of machines that is even weaker than finite-state machines. Any professor for (theoretical) computer science will be horrified by such claims.

chrisseaton 7y ago
If your program finishes without reaching the limit of tape then it doesn’t matter that the tape was limited. It’s not about classes of machines. A machine with a limited tape is a perfect approximation for the proper class of a machine with an unlimited tape if the limit is not reached for all programs you care about. Professors won’t be horrified - they also use the silent parenthetical constraint. Look for example at formal publications like Dolan’s and see how academics talk about it.