You can start by noting that Slashdot contributors are 90% atheists and they go out of their way to come up with dishonest ways to badmouth Christianity and people who believe in a creator. On Slashdot, you can badmouth God all you want but you can't say anything against Darwin, Alan Turing, Stephen Hawking, evolution, time travel, the big bang and the like. The mendacity on Slashdot is so thick, you'd think you were living in the third Reich or Stalinist Russia.
But the problem here is how you write the code itself. Purely functional code maps really well onto this model, but nobody wants to retrain all their programmers to use Haskell.
I agree but I am not so sure that it is true that "Purely functional code maps really well onto this model". For example, in spite of its proponents' use of terms like 'micro-threading' and 'lightweight processes', Erlang's concurrent model uses coarse-grained parallelism. I have yet to see a fine-grained parallel quicksort in Erlang. I'm sure the same is true for the other concurrent functional programming languages as well.
The biggest restriction turns out to be the "R" in RAM. Most of our programs use memory in an unpredictable way, pulling data from all over the memory space, and this doesn't map well to a many core architecture. You can put caches at every core, but the cache miss penalty is astronomical, not to mention the problems of keeping all the caches coherent. Random access won't scale; we will need something else, and it will break lots of programs.
I agree. This is why a properly designed multicore processor should not use the cache coherency approach. Tilera's Tile-64 processor uses an Imesh interconnect that goes a long way toward solving this problem, in my opinion. However, the trick is to keep related caches as close together as possible so as to avoid slow long-distance fetches and writes as much as possible. Unfortunately, this is the job of a good on-chip automatic load balancer, which the Tile-64 does not have. In my opinion, it's almost impossible to properly balance a multicore processor using threads. Plurality (of Israel) claims to do it with its Hypercore HAL processor but I am not very fond of Plurality's programming model.
I think that the eventual winning architecture will be the one that is easiest to write programs for.
Yep. This is why the multithreading approach to parallel processing is an ultimate loser.
But it will have to be so much better at running those programs that it is worth the effort of porting them. So it will have to be a huge improvement, or easy to port to, or some combination of the two. However, those are qualitative properties.
I think that the idea that future multicore processors should make it easy to port legacy apps is unwise. The current algorithmic computing model is so completely wrong that it should be allowed to die a slow death like the buggy whip and the vacuum tube. We need to start over from scratch.
don't think its so much enemies you make, its the attitude you take towards the community you are trying to influence.
Who said I am trying to influence the computer science community? My goal is to bash them every chance I get.
There are many very intelligent computer scientists, and you seem to suggest that most are idiots. You will not be seen as insightful if you cannot recognize the great accomplishments already made.
I don't need their approval. They don't put food on my table or a roof over my head. And yes, I do think they are a bunch of idiots. Why? Because the solution to the parallel programming and software reliability and productivity crises should be obvious to them. It is their job to understand these things. The reason that it is not obvious to them is because it takes guts to go against the grain. They don't have any. Wisdom is 90% guts and 10% sweat. Kissing ass is not conducive to progress in any field. The computer science community is filled to the rim with ass kissers. So now, you know where I am coming from. This is not a popularity contest.
Personally, I disagree with your positions on physics, and (especially) mathematics. Statements like "Continuity... leads to an infinite regress" belie your lack of understanding of these mature fields. Who is going to trust your analysis when you make these statements without any real argument? Down-modding these statements is not censorship, it's moderation: we do not need any more of this crap on/.
You see? You are a prime example of what I mean by an ass kisser. If you cannot understand that continuity means infinite divisibility by definition and, as such, leads to an infinite regress, you're a brainwashed idiot, in my opinion. What the heck is wrong with you?
you should be seeking to convince them
Not at all. They must come and kiss my ass. You keep arguing under the assumption that I need to impress people in the compsci community. You're wrong. It's the other way around. I may be wrong on a lot of issues but I am right on this one. The scientific community has been treating me like shit for a long time. They need a taste of their own medicine. LOL.
PS. Why be a gutless coward? Sign your work if you stand by it.
What the heck? How is the parent flamebait? Did some mod mis-click?
Nope. It's not a mis-click. It is called censorship on Slashdot. I made myself a lot of enemies apparently. LOL. On Slashdot, you are not allowed to criticise Turing or Darwinism or atheism. Like peer review in science, Slashdot's moderation system serves as a mechanism to suppress dissent, that's all. Too bad Slashdot is not the only forum for expression on the net. But it does not matter in the end, does it?
Thank you but why be anonymous? There is nothing to fear. Censorship on Slashdot by the usual Turing machine worshipers and other ass kissers is nothing new but that will not stop progress. The best is yet to come.
An efficient dataflow system would be the most KICK-ASS life computation engine!:-) (Now you know how old I am...)
Actually National Instruments has had a graphical data-flow dev tool for years. Their latest incarnation even has support for multicore processors (i.e., multithreading). However, what I'm proposing is not dataflow but signal flow as in logic circuits, vhdl, spiking neural networks, cellular automata and other inherently and implicitly parallel systems.
It is time for professor Olukotun and the rest of the multicore architecture design community to realize that multithreading is not part of the future of parallel computing and that the industry must adopt a non-algorithmic model. I am not one to say I told you so but, one day soon (when the parallel programming crisis heats up to unbearable levels), you will get the message loud and clear.
Maybe he has a point, maybe he hasn't, but whether or not he is in the mainstream has little or no bearing on the validity of his thought.
Well said. I want to point out that I am not the only one who's been saying that multithreading sucks. Donald Knuth has been saying the same thing. So have a whole bunch of other people. What I am adding to the fray is that there is an easy way to do parallel programming without threads that guarantees deterministic parallelism and easy programming. I am not asking for anybody to give me money. I just want to see the industry do the right thing.
I know companies trying to improve their products when they can just sell the old ones is rare, but it does happen, and that's what these companies are doing.
Nope. They are scared to death because programmers are having a hell of a hard time writing multithreaded software that uses more than just a few threads at a time. It's not easy to keep all the cores busy and balanced. If the industry can't find a solution soon, then nobody is going to buy those 16, 32, and thousand-core devices that are coming down the pike. Nobody wants to se a bunch pretty little cores piling up at the fab, all dressed up with nowhere to go.
You've got a guy on Blogspot going up against the large number of researchers at Intel who actually designed the chips, as well as researchers who can design and assemble supercomputers and are doing so with the belief that these chips are suitable.
Not true. IBM, Intel, AMD, Nvidia, Microsoft and the others do not believe that they have the answer. In fact, judging by the amount of money (hundreds of millions) that they are currently spending in research labs around the world trying to find a solution, it's obvious that the industry is in a state of panic.
Every time I read about the latest multicore processor that uses a parallel programming model based on multithreading, I just want to cry. How many times must it be repeated to the industry that multithreading is not part of the future of parallel computing? Multithreading simply sucks. Concurrent threads are non-deterministic, prone to errors and hard to program. There is an infinitely better way to design and program parallel computers that does not involves threads at all. To find out why multithreading's days are numbered, read Parallel Computing: Why the Future Is Non-Algorithmic.
You're naivity is hilarious, given the fact that some of the most advanced robot technology we have nowadays has been developed for the explicit purpose of killing people.
I don't see where we disagree. This is precisely my point. Robots do what we tell them to do.
You assume that when nations or corporations develop AIs that are actually useful, or are capable of doing such things that they will be able to control them.
You say this because there's something about how true intelligence works that escapes your understanding. All trial-and-error, general intelligences learn to behave through a motivational mechanism based on reward and punishment. Why should anybody build and raise an AI and motivate it to kick its master's ass? We humans are stupid but not that stupid, especially since we will be smart enough to build the damn things. The idea that higher intelligence necessarily means a desire to dominate others of lesser intelligence is nonsense even among humans. Ask any mother who runs to feed her baby at the slightest whimper. Desires are always born out of motivation. Just because some humans are motivated to dominate and enslave others does not mean that every intelligent agent must be similarly motivated. Our robots will serve us to the best of their abilities, regardless of their intelligence. If we are good, we'll have utopia. If not, we'll have hell. That's all.
In conclusion, let me say that all the doomsday prophecies about intelligent machines running amok and destroying humanity are pure BS, in my opinion. To use a tired cliche, robots won't kill people, people will kill people, like they always have.
Yes, that is the precise kind of thinking that demonstrates why mankind deserves to be wiped off the planet. Man, what a wonderful place the universe would be without this single species.
I agree but no amount of self-righteous pronouncements is going to help. You are a member of the human species and, like it or not, you don't have a monopoly on goodness. We all got it coming. However, my religious convictions (bad thing to have on atheist Slashdot, I know) leads me to think there is a force out there that is going to set us straight. We need to learn a painful lesson first.
I have been working on a general AI project called Animal for some time. Animal is biologically inspired. It attempts to uses a multi-layer spiking neural network to learn how to play chess from scratch using sensors, effectors and a motivation mechanism based on reward and punishment. It is based on the premise that intelligence is essentially a temporal signal-processing phenomenon. I just need some funding. The caveat is that my ideas are out there big time and there is a bunch of people in cyberspace who think I am kook. LOL. But hey, send me some money anyway. You never know. I promise I won't mention the Bible stuff.:-D
Why is it that the first application that I can think of for such project developed by DARPA is that to use it against the citizens?
Like it or lump it, you are in this boat with everyone else. If AI is solved, it will be used for good and evil. If your country does not use it for evil (extremely doubtful), somebody else's country will. Better yours than theirs. What I mean is that true AI will be an extremely powerful thing; if any country other than yours gets an early monopoly on AI, you can bet they are going to use it to kick your country's ass. I don't think you'd like that very much.
Having said that (and to get back on topic), I have been working on ageneral AI project called Animal for some time. Animal is biologically inspired. It attempts to uses a multi-layer spiking neural network to learn how to play chess from scratch using sensors, effectors and a motivation mechanism based on reward and punishment. It is based on the premise that intelligence is essentially a temporal signal-processing phenomenon. I just need some funding. The caveat is that my ideas are out there big time and there is a bunch of people in cyberspace who think I am kook. LOL. But hey, send me some money anyway. You never know.:-D
LOL. I don't need your approval and you don't need mine. I am a kook in your opinion and you're a pompous idiot in mine. How about that? We are now even. Keep on kissing ass and see if I care.:-D
Perhaps that is why you never made it as a scientist and had to resort to cranking out the shit on your blog. Because you failed to understand when opinions become verified and objective facts.
Nope. I would rather be free than be a cowardly ass kisser and a pompous ass like some people I know. Both Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend were right about you people. You are stupid.
Nice. You fail to accept your errors because as I explained at the beginning you are a crank. All it took was a little rational argument to prove it.
Your opinion, of course, but you know you don't have a monopoly on opinions, don't you? Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one. My opinion is that you're an idiot and a pompous asshole. How about that?
Us people eh? You are trying your hardest to cover up your inadequacies with cheap jibs. But lets stick firmly to your area of ignorance.
Pot. Kettle. Black. I read the rest of your argument. It's stupid.:-D I have no time to argue with every Joe that pops out of the wood work. I did what I could already. See you around.
In that case, the TM is not universal since it can only simulate and is not concerned with at least one aspect of physical systems, speed. A true universal machine can do more than simulate. It can do anything. Why? because it is universal. This is why the universe is said to be universal and hence, the name universe. Simple.
Having said that, the important point that you and a bunch of other people like you (a few do get it, I must say) are not getting is that the Turing model does not include parallelism at its core. Parallel processing becomes an ad-hoc addition to the Turing model, one which is not part of the model. In other words, parallelism is a second abstract model (in the mind of the experimenter), one which is not part of the underlying model. We need a new (and better) abstract model that includes parallelism and temporality as two of its fundamental constructs. When you simulate parallel processes with a Turing machine, you are actually using a different abstract model without realizing it. It is a subtle point and I am not expecting you to get it. I've been there before.
I'm not taking offense, I've actually read most of your 'work' and I know that you don't actually know what you are talking about. Try again, name a single computation that a Turing Machine cannot simulate.
You people need to get rid of that insufferable pomposity. You are not the most intelligent people in the world. You are blinded by your pride. It makes you look stupid. Get rid of the pomposity and you will see clearly.
What, did you fail your undergraduate formal languages class? Theoretical computer science 101: a Turing machine with multiple state sets and read/write heads, e.g. a parallel Turing machine, is computationally equivalent to the standard one.
Oh yeah? If multiple read/write heads are equivalent to one read/write head, why not use only one then? My argument is that the universe is a parallel universal machine. It cannot be simulated in real time by a Turing machine, period. If you try to get around the time problem by assuming that the head has infinite travel speed, then you run into all sorts temporal/logical problems. Deny at your own detriment.
Go back to school.
Like most academics (I assume you are one), you are insufferably pompous. Thomas Kuhn was 100% right about you people. The reason that science gets stuck in a rut has more to do with the pomposity and ego of its practitioners than anything else. Paul Feyerabend was right when he wrote, "...the most stupid procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down in size, and to give them a more modest position in society." It takes a revolution to show you people how really stupid you are and put you in your place. It's coming.
Now that you know where I'm coming from, it's time for the Slashdot censorship squad to do your duty and see if I care. LOL.
If the Turing machine is not universal then name a single computation that cannot be simulated on it.
The universe is not a Turing machine. A Turing machine cannot emulate a true parallel system like the universe in real time unless you assume infinite speed. And then all bets are off.
(Oh dear, is that just me being a crusty old academic and actually understanding the terms that you are blindly throwing around).
You sound like you're British. Are you taking offense because Turing is British and your idol is being dragged in the mud? Funny. You are crusty and old and stuck to your obsolete paradigm. You are precisely what Kuhn warned the rest of us about.
If you can name even one, then write a paper about it and become famous. Rather than regurgitating the same old tired shit on forums and being infamous.
What has being famous got to do with it? You are indeed an academic. All you people think about is fame and reputation. Damn the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
Where to start, where to start...
You can start by noting that Slashdot contributors are 90% atheists and they go out of their way to come up with dishonest ways to badmouth Christianity and people who believe in a creator. On Slashdot, you can badmouth God all you want but you can't say anything against Darwin, Alan Turing, Stephen Hawking, evolution, time travel, the big bang and the like. The mendacity on Slashdot is so thick, you'd think you were living in the third Reich or Stalinist Russia.
But the problem here is how you write the code itself. Purely functional code maps really well onto this model, but nobody wants to retrain all their programmers to use Haskell.
I agree but I am not so sure that it is true that "Purely functional code maps really well onto this model". For example, in spite of its proponents' use of terms like 'micro-threading' and 'lightweight processes', Erlang's concurrent model uses coarse-grained parallelism. I have yet to see a fine-grained parallel quicksort in Erlang. I'm sure the same is true for the other concurrent functional programming languages as well.
The biggest restriction turns out to be the "R" in RAM. Most of our programs use memory in an unpredictable way, pulling data from all over the memory space, and this doesn't map well to a many core architecture. You can put caches at every core, but the cache miss penalty is astronomical, not to mention the problems of keeping all the caches coherent. Random access won't scale; we will need something else, and it will break lots of programs.
I agree. This is why a properly designed multicore processor should not use the cache coherency approach. Tilera's Tile-64 processor uses an Imesh interconnect that goes a long way toward solving this problem, in my opinion. However, the trick is to keep related caches as close together as possible so as to avoid slow long-distance fetches and writes as much as possible. Unfortunately, this is the job of a good on-chip automatic load balancer, which the Tile-64 does not have. In my opinion, it's almost impossible to properly balance a multicore processor using threads. Plurality (of Israel) claims to do it with its Hypercore HAL processor but I am not very fond of Plurality's programming model.
I think that the eventual winning architecture will be the one that is easiest to write programs for.
Yep. This is why the multithreading approach to parallel processing is an ultimate loser.
But it will have to be so much better at running those programs that it is worth the effort of porting them. So it will have to be a huge improvement, or easy to port to, or some combination of the two. However, those are qualitative properties.
I think that the idea that future multicore processors should make it easy to port legacy apps is unwise. The current algorithmic computing model is so completely wrong that it should be allowed to die a slow death like the buggy whip and the vacuum tube. We need to start over from scratch.
don't think its so much enemies you make, its the attitude you take towards the community you are trying to influence.
Who said I am trying to influence the computer science community? My goal is to bash them every chance I get.
There are many very intelligent computer scientists, and you seem to suggest that most are idiots. You will not be seen as insightful if you cannot recognize the great accomplishments already made.
I don't need their approval. They don't put food on my table or a roof over my head. And yes, I do think they are a bunch of idiots. Why? Because the solution to the parallel programming and software reliability and productivity crises should be obvious to them. It is their job to understand these things. The reason that it is not obvious to them is because it takes guts to go against the grain. They don't have any. Wisdom is 90% guts and 10% sweat. Kissing ass is not conducive to progress in any field. The computer science community is filled to the rim with ass kissers. So now, you know where I am coming from. This is not a popularity contest.
Personally, I disagree with your positions on physics, and (especially) mathematics. Statements like "Continuity ... leads to an infinite regress" belie your lack of understanding of these mature fields. Who is going to trust your analysis when you make these statements without any real argument? Down-modding these statements is not censorship, it's moderation: we do not need any more of this crap on /.
You see? You are a prime example of what I mean by an ass kisser. If you cannot understand that continuity means infinite divisibility by definition and, as such, leads to an infinite regress, you're a brainwashed idiot, in my opinion. What the heck is wrong with you?
you should be seeking to convince them
Not at all. They must come and kiss my ass. You keep arguing under the assumption that I need to impress people in the compsci community. You're wrong. It's the other way around. I may be wrong on a lot of issues but I am right on this one. The scientific community has been treating me like shit for a long time. They need a taste of their own medicine. LOL.
PS. Why be a gutless coward? Sign your work if you stand by it.
What the heck? How is the parent flamebait? Did some mod mis-click?
Nope. It's not a mis-click. It is called censorship on Slashdot. I made myself a lot of enemies apparently. LOL. On Slashdot, you are not allowed to criticise Turing or Darwinism or atheism. Like peer review in science, Slashdot's moderation system serves as a mechanism to suppress dissent, that's all. Too bad Slashdot is not the only forum for expression on the net. But it does not matter in the end, does it?
Fuck you and all your ignorant "yes-man" kind
Thank you but why be anonymous? There is nothing to fear. Censorship on Slashdot by the usual Turing machine worshipers and other ass kissers is nothing new but that will not stop progress. The best is yet to come.
An efficient dataflow system would be the most KICK-ASS life computation engine! :-) (Now you know how old I am...)
Actually National Instruments has had a graphical data-flow dev tool for years. Their latest incarnation even has support for multicore processors (i.e., multithreading). However, what I'm proposing is not dataflow but signal flow as in logic circuits, vhdl, spiking neural networks, cellular automata and other inherently and implicitly parallel systems.
It is time for professor Olukotun and the rest of the multicore architecture design community to realize that multithreading is not part of the future of parallel computing and that the industry must adopt a non-algorithmic model. I am not one to say I told you so but, one day soon (when the parallel programming crisis heats up to unbearable levels), you will get the message loud and clear.
Maybe he has a point, maybe he hasn't, but whether or not he is in the mainstream has little or no bearing on the validity of his thought.
Well said. I want to point out that I am not the only one who's been saying that multithreading sucks. Donald Knuth has been saying the same thing. So have a whole bunch of other people. What I am adding to the fray is that there is an easy way to do parallel programming without threads that guarantees deterministic parallelism and easy programming. I am not asking for anybody to give me money. I just want to see the industry do the right thing.
I know companies trying to improve their products when they can just sell the old ones is rare, but it does happen, and that's what these companies are doing.
Nope. They are scared to death because programmers are having a hell of a hard time writing multithreaded software that uses more than just a few threads at a time. It's not easy to keep all the cores busy and balanced. If the industry can't find a solution soon, then nobody is going to buy those 16, 32, and thousand-core devices that are coming down the pike. Nobody wants to se a bunch pretty little cores piling up at the fab, all dressed up with nowhere to go.
You've got a guy on Blogspot going up against the large number of researchers at Intel who actually designed the chips, as well as researchers who can design and assemble supercomputers and are doing so with the belief that these chips are suitable.
Not true. IBM, Intel, AMD, Nvidia, Microsoft and the others do not believe that they have the answer. In fact, judging by the amount of money (hundreds of millions) that they are currently spending in research labs around the world trying to find a solution, it's obvious that the industry is in a state of panic.
I wonder who wins.
It's not over until it's over.
Every time I read about the latest multicore processor that uses a parallel programming model based on multithreading, I just want to cry. How many times must it be repeated to the industry that multithreading is not part of the future of parallel computing? Multithreading simply sucks. Concurrent threads are non-deterministic, prone to errors and hard to program. There is an infinitely better way to design and program parallel computers that does not involves threads at all. To find out why multithreading's days are numbered, read Parallel Computing: Why the Future Is Non-Algorithmic.
You're naivity is hilarious, given the fact that some of the most advanced robot technology we have nowadays has been developed for the explicit purpose of killing people.
I don't see where we disagree. This is precisely my point. Robots do what we tell them to do.
You assume that when nations or corporations develop AIs that are actually useful, or are capable of doing such things that they will be able to control them.
You say this because there's something about how true intelligence works that escapes your understanding. All trial-and-error, general intelligences learn to behave through a motivational mechanism based on reward and punishment. Why should anybody build and raise an AI and motivate it to kick its master's ass? We humans are stupid but not that stupid, especially since we will be smart enough to build the damn things. The idea that higher intelligence necessarily means a desire to dominate others of lesser intelligence is nonsense even among humans. Ask any mother who runs to feed her baby at the slightest whimper. Desires are always born out of motivation. Just because some humans are motivated to dominate and enslave others does not mean that every intelligent agent must be similarly motivated. Our robots will serve us to the best of their abilities, regardless of their intelligence. If we are good, we'll have utopia. If not, we'll have hell. That's all.
In conclusion, let me say that all the doomsday prophecies about intelligent machines running amok and destroying humanity are pure BS, in my opinion. To use a tired cliche, robots won't kill people, people will kill people, like they always have.
LOL. You're funny. Why stay anonymous, though? Every artist should sign his or her work, no?
Yes, that is the precise kind of thinking that demonstrates why mankind deserves to be wiped off the planet. Man, what a wonderful place the universe would be without this single species.
I agree but no amount of self-righteous pronouncements is going to help. You are a member of the human species and, like it or not, you don't have a monopoly on goodness. We all got it coming. However, my religious convictions (bad thing to have on atheist Slashdot, I know) leads me to think there is a force out there that is going to set us straight. We need to learn a painful lesson first.
I have been working on a general AI project called Animal for some time. Animal is biologically inspired. It attempts to uses a multi-layer spiking neural network to learn how to play chess from scratch using sensors, effectors and a motivation mechanism based on reward and punishment. It is based on the premise that intelligence is essentially a temporal signal-processing phenomenon. I just need some funding. The caveat is that my ideas are out there big time and there is a bunch of people in cyberspace who think I am kook. LOL. But hey, send me some money anyway. You never know. I promise I won't mention the Bible stuff. :-D
Why is it that the first application that I can think of for such project developed by DARPA is that to use it against the citizens?
Like it or lump it, you are in this boat with everyone else. If AI is solved, it will be used for good and evil. If your country does not use it for evil (extremely doubtful), somebody else's country will. Better yours than theirs. What I mean is that true AI will be an extremely powerful thing; if any country other than yours gets an early monopoly on AI, you can bet they are going to use it to kick your country's ass. I don't think you'd like that very much.
Having said that (and to get back on topic), I have been working on ageneral AI project called Animal for some time. Animal is biologically inspired. It attempts to uses a multi-layer spiking neural network to learn how to play chess from scratch using sensors, effectors and a motivation mechanism based on reward and punishment. It is based on the premise that intelligence is essentially a temporal signal-processing phenomenon. I just need some funding. The caveat is that my ideas are out there big time and there is a bunch of people in cyberspace who think I am kook. LOL. But hey, send me some money anyway. You never know. :-D
Ah, so as always you return to your anal fixation. I see that the rumours of your ass fascination were not exaggerated.
Ass, kiss. You like it, don't you? You keep coming back for more abuse.
Come on Louis try and defend your work.
:-D
LOL. I don't need your approval and you don't need mine. I am a kook in your opinion and you're a pompous idiot in mine. How about that? We are now even. Keep on kissing ass and see if I care.
Perhaps that is why you never made it as a scientist and had to resort to cranking out the shit on your blog. Because you failed to understand when opinions become verified and objective facts.
Nope. I would rather be free than be a cowardly ass kisser and a pompous ass like some people I know. Both Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend were right about you people. You are stupid.
Nice. You fail to accept your errors because as I explained at the beginning you are a crank. All it took was a little rational argument to prove it.
Your opinion, of course, but you know you don't have a monopoly on opinions, don't you? Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one. My opinion is that you're an idiot and a pompous asshole. How about that?
Us people eh? You are trying your hardest to cover up your inadequacies with cheap jibs. But lets stick firmly to your area of ignorance.
:-D I have no time to argue with every Joe that pops out of the wood work. I did what I could already. See you around.
Pot. Kettle. Black. I read the rest of your argument. It's stupid.
Simulation is not concerned with speed.
In that case, the TM is not universal since it can only simulate and is not concerned with at least one aspect of physical systems, speed. A true universal machine can do more than simulate. It can do anything. Why? because it is universal. This is why the universe is said to be universal and hence, the name universe. Simple.
Having said that, the important point that you and a bunch of other people like you (a few do get it, I must say) are not getting is that the Turing model does not include parallelism at its core. Parallel processing becomes an ad-hoc addition to the Turing model, one which is not part of the model. In other words, parallelism is a second abstract model (in the mind of the experimenter), one which is not part of the underlying model. We need a new (and better) abstract model that includes parallelism and temporality as two of its fundamental constructs. When you simulate parallel processes with a Turing machine, you are actually using a different abstract model without realizing it. It is a subtle point and I am not expecting you to get it. I've been there before.
I'm not taking offense, I've actually read most of your 'work' and I know that you don't actually know what you are talking about. Try again, name a single computation that a Turing Machine cannot simulate.
You people need to get rid of that insufferable pomposity. You are not the most intelligent people in the world. You are blinded by your pride. It makes you look stupid. Get rid of the pomposity and you will see clearly.
What, did you fail your undergraduate formal languages class? Theoretical computer science 101: a Turing machine with multiple state sets and read/write heads, e.g. a parallel Turing machine, is computationally equivalent to the standard one.
Oh yeah? If multiple read/write heads are equivalent to one read/write head, why not use only one then? My argument is that the universe is a parallel universal machine. It cannot be simulated in real time by a Turing machine, period. If you try to get around the time problem by assuming that the head has infinite travel speed, then you run into all sorts temporal/logical problems. Deny at your own detriment.
Go back to school.
Like most academics (I assume you are one), you are insufferably pompous. Thomas Kuhn was 100% right about you people. The reason that science gets stuck in a rut has more to do with the pomposity and ego of its practitioners than anything else. Paul Feyerabend was right when he wrote, "...the most stupid procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down in size, and to give them a more modest position in society." It takes a revolution to show you people how really stupid you are and put you in your place. It's coming.
Now that you know where I'm coming from, it's time for the Slashdot censorship squad to do your duty and see if I care. LOL.
If the Turing machine is not universal then name a single computation that cannot be simulated on it.
The universe is not a Turing machine. A Turing machine cannot emulate a true parallel system like the universe in real time unless you assume infinite speed. And then all bets are off.
(Oh dear, is that just me being a crusty old academic and actually understanding the terms that you are blindly throwing around).
You sound like you're British. Are you taking offense because Turing is British and your idol is being dragged in the mud? Funny. You are crusty and old and stuck to your obsolete paradigm. You are precisely what Kuhn warned the rest of us about.
If you can name even one, then write a paper about it and become famous. Rather than regurgitating the same old tired shit on forums and being infamous.
What has being famous got to do with it? You are indeed an academic. All you people think about is fame and reputation. Damn the truth.