🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 23:02:53 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
<headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I wonder if there are any electronic implementations
>of a Turing Machine, especially one that allows
>for state machine realisation to control it?
>
>One of the intriguing limitations of such machines
>is that any problem that cannot be solved will result
>in a failure of the machine to halt, but that does not
>gel with the human brain for we can determine that
>a problem is insoluble and yet our brains do not halt!

     You might be interested in this:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo8izCKHiF0
          Mechanical Turing Machine in Wood

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

On 19/02/2018 07:26, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 23:02:53 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
> <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> I wonder if there are any electronic implementations
>> of a Turing Machine, especially one that allows
>> for state machine realisation to control it?
>>
>> One of the intriguing limitations of such machines
>> is that any problem that cannot be solved will result
>> in a failure of the machine to halt, but that does not
>> gel with the human brain for we can determine that
>> a problem is insoluble and yet our brains do not halt!
> 
>       You might be interested in this:
>            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo8izCKHiF0
>            Mechanical Turing Machine in Wood

WOW!

Bookmarked to watch again and again!

Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.

It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
have been built with the technology available at the time
it was first postualted (1935?)

Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:


> It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
> have been built with the technology available at the time
> it was first postualted (1935?)
A simple Turing machine could have definitely been built in 1935, using 
vacuum tubes and relays.  But, when Turing proposed it, is was the intention 
that it be really "stupid" to prove the point that all computers that 
posessed certain abilities were equivalent, ie. they could solve the same 
problems, but not necessarily in the same elapsed time.

So, when all this electronic hardware was expensive and cumbersome, it made 
more sense to use it to make practical computers.

Although the Atanasoff-Berry "computer" was not built until, I think, 
1938-39, there was nothing in it that was not available a decade before 
that.  (I say "computer", because by the Turing definition, it was not 
stored-program and could only skip instructions, no branching was possible.)
But, with the technology in the ABC, it COULD have been expanded to a stored 
program computer with branching.

Jon

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:11:12 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
<headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 19/02/2018 07:26, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 23:02:53 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>> <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I wonder if there are any electronic implementations
>>> of a Turing Machine, especially one that allows
>>> for state machine realisation to control it?
>>>
>>> One of the intriguing limitations of such machines
>>> is that any problem that cannot be solved will result
>>> in a failure of the machine to halt, but that does not
>>> gel with the human brain for we can determine that
>>> a problem is insoluble and yet our brains do not halt!
>> 
>>       You might be interested in this:
>>            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo8izCKHiF0
>>            Mechanical Turing Machine in Wood
>
>WOW!
>
>Bookmarked to watch again and again!

     I am glad you liked it.

>Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
>each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
>write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
>
>It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
>have been built with the technology available at the time
>it was first postualted (1935?)

     I do not think that that is that notable.  The machine could have
been made back in Babbage's time.  (Too bad Babbage did not come up
with something more immediately practical.)

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

On 2018-02-20, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:11:12 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
><headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On 19/02/2018 07:26, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>>Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
>>each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
>>write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
>>
>>It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
>>have been built with the technology available at the time
>>it was first postualted (1935?)
>
>      I do not think that that is that notable.  The machine could have
> been made back in Babbage's time.  (Too bad Babbage did not come up
> with something more immediately practical.)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko

AFAIhaveread, the problem was that it not possible to machine parts to
the limits that Babbage's machines needed, at that time.


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

On 21 Feb 2018 11:13:54 GMT, maus <ma...@mail.com> wrote:

>On 2018-02-20, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:11:12 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>><headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 19/02/2018 07:26, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>
>>>Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
>>>each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
>>>write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
>>>
>>>It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
>>>have been built with the technology available at the time
>>>it was first postualted (1935?)
>>
>>      I do not think that that is that notable.  The machine could have
>> been made back in Babbage's time.  (Too bad Babbage did not come up
>> with something more immediately practical.)

>AFAIhaveread, the problem was that it not possible to machine parts to
>the limits that Babbage's machines needed, at that time.

     I was thinking of that plus that Babbage did not get something
practical going.  That might have helped get mechanical computing
going big.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

maus <ma...@mail.com> writes:

> On 2018-02-20, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:11:12 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>><headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 19/02/2018 07:26, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>
>>>Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
>>>each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
>>>write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
>>>
>>>It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
>>>have been built with the technology available at the time
>>>it was first postualted (1935?)
>>
>>      I do not think that that is that notable.  The machine could have
>> been made back in Babbage's time.  (Too bad Babbage did not come up
>> with something more immediately practical.)
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Gene Wirchenko
>
> AFAIhaveread, the problem was that it not possible to machine parts to
> the limits that Babbage's machines needed, at that time.

No, it's been pretty well established they could have been.  The problem
was that he never froze his design.

On 2018-02-21, Joe Pfeiffer <pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
> maus <ma...@mail.com> writes:
>
>> On 2018-02-20, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:11:12 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>><headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 19/02/2018 07:26, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>
>>>>Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
>>>>each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
>>>>write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
>>>>
>>>>It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
>>>>have been built with the technology available at the time
>>>>it was first postualted (1935?)
>>>
>>>      I do not think that that is that notable.  The machine could have
>>> been made back in Babbage's time.  (Too bad Babbage did not come up
>>> with something more immediately practical.)
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Gene Wirchenko
>>
>> AFAIhaveread, the problem was that it not possible to machine parts to
>> the limits that Babbage's machines needed, at that time.
>
> No, it's been pretty well established they could have been.  The problem
> was that he never froze his design.

In that he was not the last :)


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 4:13:55 AM UTC-7, maus wrote:

> AFAIhaveread, the problem was that it not possible to machine parts to
> the limits that Babbage's machines needed, at that time.

Arthur C. Clarke claimed this in _Profiles of the Future_. However, since 
Babbage's Analytical Engine was a digital computer, not an analogue computer, it 
should have been possible, with conservative design, to get one to work even if 
one had to make do with poor-quality machining.

Konrad Zuse's first working computer, although made in a very different manner, 
was mechanical.

John Savard

On 2018-02-21, Joe Pfeiffer <pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:

> maus <ma...@mail.com> writes:
>
>> On 2018-02-20, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:11:12 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>> <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
>>>> each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
>>>> write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
>>>>
>>>> It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
>>>> have been built with the technology available at the time
>>>> it was first postualted (1935?)
>>>
>>>      I do not think that that is that notable.  The machine could have
>>> been made back in Babbage's time.  (Too bad Babbage did not come up
>>> with something more immediately practical.)
>>
>> AFAIhaveread, the problem was that it not possible to machine parts to
>> the limits that Babbage's machines needed, at that time.
>
> No, it's been pretty well established they could have been.  The problem
> was that he never froze his design.

Ah, some things never change.

    Frozen specs and the Abominable Snowman have a lot in common:
    both are myths, and both melt when enough heat is applied.
      -- unknown

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!