4 ms·
> The human brain isn't Turing-complete as that would require infinite memory. This is wrong, this is not what Turing completeness is. It applies to computatio
by 0-_-0 5y ago
> The human brain isn't Turing-complete as that would require infinite memory.
This is wrong, this is not what Turing completeness is. It applies to computational models, not hardware.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness
- jozvolskyef 5y agoHow so? The page you link offers three definitions[1], and all of them require an infinite tape. You could argue that a stack is missing in my simplified model of the human brain, which would be correct. I used the simple model in allusion to the Chinese room thought experiment which doesn't require anything more than a dictionary. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness#Formal_definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness#Formal_def...
- 0-_-0 5y agoTuring completeness applies to models of computation, not hardware. Otherwise, nothing would be Turing-complete because infinite memory doesn't exist in the real world. Just read the first sentence of what you linked to: In computability theory, several closely related terms are used to describe the computational power of a computational system (such as an abstract machine or programming language)
- jozvolskyef 5y agoThank you for pointing that out, I was indeed wrong to assume it was used to classify hardware rather than a model.