Then, you complain that his use of the term "smallest" is unfair.
Which is it?
Again -- "this would be a fun problem to tackle if it were well defined".
It is well defined. And, it concerns whether a machine, which he has introduced, is universal, in a clear, meaningful sense.
Your new complaint, that Wolfram's use of the term "smallest Turing machine" is self-aggrandizing, unfair, and ignores the history of computability is correct, but is nothing new, as far as criticisms of Wolfram go. I saw what was probably the first talk on his book tour for NKOS and I concur on all points.
I'm glad you 'dug deep' to clarify your complaints about Wolfram, and show that you do understand the problem he has posed. Your PhD advisor would be proud!
By the way, when you start to defend yourself by reminding people that you went to MIT, and had a famous advisor, you start to sound a bit like Wol.. oh, now I'm just being cruel.
Yes, that would be one approach. But my point is that this is not the normal definition of a universal Turing machine. It's misleading to use that terminology; also, the real problem he is asking for a solution for seems to be somewhat less well defined than the appropriate, corresponding question would be for an ordinary Turing machine. The decision question should be simply and formally specified. You came up with one that would seem plausible. But who decides what's plausible? Nobody decides 'plausibility' (at least not recursion theorists or researchers in computability). They investigate relative computability.
You see, the functions computable by Turing machines whose "halting" is defined as some pre-specified infinite loop, identical for all outputs, are the same as the functions computable by regular Turing machines with a privileged halting state. That is why, from the point of computability theory, it doesn't matter that Wolfram's possible universal machine doesn't have a privileged halting state.
As a result, the result, positive or negative, would seem less interesting to me, as a researcher in computational complexity. I don't know why you think that a result in computability theory would be of interest to a researcher in computational complexity (beyond both having 'something to do with computers').
... if it were well defined. Instead Wolfram seems to be using a nonstandard, unclear notion of "universality". By any standard definition, no Turing machine without a halting state can be universal. Thus, coming up with a satisfactory proof of "universality" or "non-universality" would seem to serve no purpose besides promoting Wolfram's nonstandard definitions. At the least, he should not describe this gadget as a Turing machine, which definitely implies a particular notion of universality. This is a minor issue. It can be solved by showing that for halting states of the simulated machine, the correct output is on the tape, and the emulating machine is in a verifiable loop that does not alter the content of the tape.
Again, Wolfram may be a lot of things, but he knows his computability theory.
I feel for you, but I have a background in computability theory and I've decided, after looking at the problem page (and not having read any of Wolfram's other stuff) that the challenge is
perfectly sensible, and,
quite hard.
He describes a Turing machine with a language consisting of three symbols (his use of colors is annoying), two states, and six state transitions. It's much easier to follow if you ignore all the pictures and just read the set description of his machine. The third '1' in the output triples means 'move left' and '-1' means 'move right'.
To prove that this Wolfram's machine W is universal, provide a construction where you take an arbitrary Turing machine T_k, and an input to that machine n, and generate an encoding e such that T_k(n) = W(e), or W(e) yields a verifiable loop if T_k(n) does not halt.
On the other hand, to prove that W is not universal, show how the assumption that it is leads to contradiction.
is not the job of voters. If someone gets bored by national discussions of policy differences between party nominees, instead of "who screamed when", penetrating analysis of primary successes and failures, maybe they shouldn't vote.
Also, do you get a big kick out of starting sentences in the subject line? I tried it, and it was so-so.
I believe (although I'm not at home to test this) that the 360 audio player works much like a CD player - holding down the track forward button will FF and track back will rewind. Wrong!
Oh wait. Did you read this thread, and are trying to taunt me?
Ah -- you posted to that thread. So, I guess you're being a bit of a joker. Good luck with that!
Anyone remember this article about bugs and programming?
Committing the "black or white fallacy" is destructive everywhere, both in politics and programming. Saying that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans because they're both politicians is good for one thing:
letting smug, lazy cynics feel somehow that by not doing anything, they're intellectually superior.
Seriously, it's too bad you opened your mouth before checking your facts. I thought this might be an ideal thread to get traction on this issue with the community.
Please mod down the comment that says that you can fast forward and rewind audio tracks, of any kind, on the Xbox. Poster who asserted this was "thinking about it".
I may seem a little nervy about this issue, but I mainly listen to 75 minute, or longer, dj sets, and if I turn off my Xbox at any point I can't fast forward to that point again next time.
In case anyone is still tempted to give mod points to the joker above who thinks you can do this, I spent 15 minutes on hold with tech support at Microsoft.
They confirmed that there is no way to rewind or fast forward (seek) within audio tracks.
Weird. Works fine for me. Just hold down Next Track in the guide instead of tapping it, and it'll fast forward.
Are you using a Microsoft branded remote to do this? This is the only thing I can imagine that provides you, but not countless other Xbox 360 owners, with the ability to do this.
So what you're saying is that you cannot seek in IP-streamed music, but you can seek in local files (e.g. on Xbox's HDD, from external data storage via USB)? Eep!
No, what I am saying is worse than that. I just tried the parent's technique for seeking within
Tracks from an audio CD in the Xbox 360 itself
Tracks ripped by the Xbox 360 onto its own hard drive
Tracks in.mp3 format streamed from a networked computer
Tracks in.wma format streamed from a networked computer
This is no way a defense of Macrovision's "please protect my business model" whining, but I think what they have in mind is the claim that without DRM, customers who wish to have the "fill up my napster player with music I don't own but merely license" service would be S.O.L. There would be no way to prevent users from keeping everything they preview. Please note: I think the Napster model is doomed to failure, and this is in no way an endorsement of it.
Why is a Napster Subscription Better Than Only Buying Music From an a la carte Music Store?
A Napster subscription gives you unlimited access to 3 million songs on your PC. For only a little bit more a month, a Napster To Go subscription allows you to transfer an unlimited amount of music to your PC and compatible MP3 player.
Think of it like a going to buffet. With all-you-can-eat music, you can try everything you want, whenever you want. One day you can take every album by Bob Dylan, Miles Davis, Gwen Stefani or 50 Cent. The next day you can download a whole radio station or every Reggae album you want. Your music doesn't have to be limited by your budget anymore. With Napster, the whole world of music opens up to you for the price of one CD a month.
Of course, all Napster subscribers still have the option to purchase music to burn to CD or just keep permanently in their digital music collection. Subscribers get up to a 20% discount when purchasing multiple songs with Napster Track Packs.
With a Napster subscription, you can try music before you buy it.
Why doesn't Microsoft have the same problems? From TFA:
Apple has concluded that if it licenses FairPlay to others, it can no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses from the big four music companies. Perhaps this same conclusion contributed to Microsoft's recent decision to switch their emphasis from an "open" model of licensing their DRM to others to a "closed" model of offering a proprietary music store, proprietary jukebox software and proprietary players. Really, did you read the article at all?
Please mod parent up, and mod grandparent down.
TFA is quite clear about why licensing DRM to others wouldn't work. I'm open to counterarguments, but not paranoid delusions.
"musician (my-zsh'n)
n. One who composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental music. "
Semantics aside, there's actually an interesting issue here. Is a computer running some sort of sequencing software an instrument?
If you answer no, be prepared to defend a difficult position according to which some technological developments, as opposed to others, infringe on the "essential" nature of an instrument.
If you answer yes, then he's a musician who performs music, full stop -- just not using drums or piano.
Slashdot Mirror
Then, you complain that his use of the term "smallest" is unfair.
Which is it?
Again -- "this would be a fun problem to tackle if it were well defined".
It is well defined. And, it concerns whether a machine, which he has introduced, is universal, in a clear, meaningful sense.
Your new complaint, that Wolfram's use of the term "smallest Turing machine" is self-aggrandizing, unfair, and ignores the history of computability is correct, but is nothing new, as far as criticisms of Wolfram go. I saw what was probably the first talk on his book tour for NKOS and I concur on all points.
I'm glad you 'dug deep' to clarify your complaints about Wolfram, and show that you do understand the problem he has posed. Your PhD advisor would be proud!
By the way, when you start to defend yourself by reminding people that you went to MIT, and had a famous advisor, you start to sound a bit like Wol.. oh, now I'm just being cruel.
You see, the functions computable by Turing machines whose "halting" is defined as some pre-specified infinite loop, identical for all outputs, are the same as the functions computable by regular Turing machines with a privileged halting state. That is why, from the point of computability theory, it doesn't matter that Wolfram's possible universal machine doesn't have a privileged halting state. As a result, the result, positive or negative, would seem less interesting to me, as a researcher in computational complexity. I don't know why you think that a result in computability theory would be of interest to a researcher in computational complexity (beyond both having 'something to do with computers').
... if it were well defined. Instead Wolfram seems to be using a nonstandard, unclear notion of "universality". By any standard definition, no Turing machine without a halting state can be universal. Thus, coming up with a satisfactory proof of "universality" or "non-universality" would seem to serve no purpose besides promoting Wolfram's nonstandard definitions. At the least, he should not describe this gadget as a Turing machine, which definitely implies a particular notion of universality. This is a minor issue. It can be solved by showing that for halting states of the simulated machine, the correct output is on the tape, and the emulating machine is in a verifiable loop that does not alter the content of the tape.Again, Wolfram may be a lot of things, but he knows his computability theory.
- perfectly sensible, and,
- quite hard.
He describes a Turing machine with a language consisting of three symbols (his use of colors is annoying), two states, and six state transitions. It's much easier to follow if you ignore all the pictures and just read the set description of his machine. The third '1' in the output triples means 'move left' and '-1' means 'move right'.To prove that this Wolfram's machine W is universal, provide a construction where you take an arbitrary Turing machine T_k, and an input to that machine n, and generate an encoding e such that T_k(n) = W(e), or W(e) yields a verifiable loop if T_k(n) does not halt.
On the other hand, to prove that W is not universal, show how the assumption that it is leads to contradiction.
is not the job of voters. If someone gets bored by national discussions of policy differences between party nominees, instead of "who screamed when", penetrating analysis of primary successes and failures, maybe they shouldn't vote.
Also, do you get a big kick out of starting sentences in the subject line? I tried it, and it was so-so.
Such brilliant reasons as The time from February to Labor Day will be boring beyond belief are very compelling when weighed against the preservation of democracy.
Oh wait. Did you read this thread, and are trying to taunt me?
Ah -- you posted to that thread. So, I guess you're being a bit of a joker. Good luck with that!
I applied the update at lunch.
Still no way to scan (fast forward/rewind) within an audio track.
What year is this?
I wish I had mod points for you, buddy.
Anyone remember this article about bugs and programming?
Committing the "black or white fallacy" is destructive everywhere, both in politics and programming. Saying that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans because they're both politicians is good for one thing:
letting smug, lazy cynics feel somehow that by not doing anything, they're intellectually superior.
All that makes you is a part of the problem.
Dude, be more careful in future. Let's leave it at that. Dude.
Also, once someone's already dropped their money on an Xbox, do you think M$ really cares if they have `minor problems' with media functionality?
Don't you suppose this information might be more relevant to someone who is wavering between the various convergent living room devices now available?
No worries, just tell yourself that it's ok that your arrogance and lack of patience made you lay a steaming pile of crap on slashdot.
I guess you're just as dumb as the rest of us!
Seriously, it's too bad you opened your mouth before checking your facts. I thought this might be an ideal thread to get traction on this issue with the community.
I may seem a little nervy about this issue, but I mainly listen to 75 minute, or longer, dj sets, and if I turn off my Xbox at any point I can't fast forward to that point again next time.
They confirmed that there is no way to rewind or fast forward (seek) within audio tracks.
Perhaps the guy who thinks this is possible is
Are you using a Microsoft branded remote to do this? This is the only thing I can imagine that provides you, but not countless other Xbox 360 owners, with the ability to do this.
No, what I am saying is worse than that. I just tried the parent's technique for seeking within
- Tracks from an audio CD in the Xbox 360 itself
- Tracks ripped by the Xbox 360 onto its own hard drive
- Tracks in
.mp3 format streamed from a networked computer
- Tracks in
.wma format streamed from a networked computer
I was able to seek in none of them.You know, I've heard this before. In fact I just went home from work to test this. It doesn't work.
Let's be clear: when playing a track that is being streamed from a networked computer, on the Xbox 360, you can fast forward/rewind tracks?
I can't, and numerous people on the Xbox 360 forums can either.
Still no sign that the update will enable fast forward and rewind in audio tracks.
What year is this?
In other words, from Napster's FAQ,
why is parent being modded down?
The guy really did resign. Maybe Yahoo didn't like his stance on DRM?
Please mod parent up, and mod grandparent down. TFA is quite clear about why licensing DRM to others wouldn't work. I'm open to counterarguments, but not paranoid delusions.
Tech specs
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
"musician (my-zsh'n) n. One who composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental music. "
Semantics aside, there's actually an interesting issue here. Is a computer running some sort of sequencing software an instrument?
If you answer no, be prepared to defend a difficult position according to which some technological developments, as opposed to others, infringe on the "essential" nature of an instrument.
If you answer yes, then he's a musician who performs music, full stop -- just not using drums or piano.