Search results for 'Turing Machines' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  18
    M. H. A. Newman, Alan M. Turing, Geoffrey Jefferson, R. B. Braithwaite & S. Shieber (2004). Can Automatic Calculating Machines Be Said to Think? In Stuart M. Shieber (ed.), The Turing Test: Verbal Behavior as the Hallmark of Intelligence. MIT Press
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  2.  37
    Aaron Sloman (2002). The Irrelevance of Turing Machines to Artificial Intelligence. In Matthias Scheutz (ed.), Computationalism: New Directions. MIT Press
  3.  37
    Robert H. Kane (1966). Turing Machines and Mental Reports. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 44 (December):344-52.
  4.  40
    Joel David Hamkins (2002). Infinite Time Turing Machines. Minds and Machines 12 (4):567-604.
    Infinite time Turing machines extend the operation of ordinary Turing machines into transfinite ordinal time. By doing so, they provide a natural model of infinitary computability, a theoretical setting for the analysis of the power and limitations of supertask algorithms.
    Direct download (20 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   12 citations  
  5.  56
    B. Jack Copeland (2002). Accelerating Turing Machines. Minds and Machines 12 (2):281-300.
    Accelerating Turing machines are Turing machines of a sort able to perform tasks that are commonly regarded as impossible for Turing machines. For example, they can determine whether or not the decimal representation of contains n consecutive 7s, for any n; solve the Turing-machine halting problem; and decide the predicate calculus. Are accelerating Turing machines, then, logically impossible devices? I argue that they are not. There are implications concerning the nature of (...)
    Direct download (17 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  6.  10
    D. E. Seabold & J. D. Hamkins (2001). Infinite Time Turing Machines With Only One Tape. Mathematical Logic Quarterly 47 (2):271-287.
    Infinite time Turing machines with only one tape are in many respects fully as powerful as their multi-tape cousins. In particular, the two models of machine give rise to the same class of decidable sets, the same degree structure and, at least for partial functions f : ℝ → ℕ, the same class of computable functions. Nevertheless, there are infinite time computable functions f : ℝ → ℝ that are not one-tape computable, and so the two models of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  7.  41
    Joel David Hamkins & Andy Lewis (2000). Infinite Time Turing Machines. Journal of Symbolic Logic 65 (2):567-604.
    Infinite time Turing machines extend the operation of ordinary Turing machines into transfinite ordinal time. By doing so, they provide a natural model of infinitary computability, a theoretical setting for the analysis of the power and limitations of supertask algorithms.
    Direct download (20 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  8. Jack Copeland, Even Turing Machines Can Compute Uncomputable Functions.
    Accelerated Turing machines are Turing machines that perform tasks commonly regarded as impossible, such as computing the halting function. The existence of these notional machines has obvious implications concerning the theoretical limits of computability.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  9.  42
    Neil Tennant (2001). On Turing Machines Knowing Their Own Gödel-Sentences. Philosophia Mathematica 9 (1):72-79.
    Storrs McCall appeals to a particular true but improvable sentence of formal arithmetic to argue, by appeal to its irrefutability, that human minds transcend Turing machines. Metamathematical oversights in McCall's discussion of the Godel phenomena, however, render invalid his philosophical argument for this transcendentalist conclusion.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  2
    Benjamin Rin (2014). The Computational Strengths of Α-Tape Infinite Time Turing Machines. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 165 (9):1501-1511.
    In [7], open questions are raised regarding the computational strengths of so-called ∞-α -Turing machines, a family of models of computation resembling the infinite-time Turing machine model of [2], except with α -length tape . Let TαTα denote the machine model of tape length α . Define that TαTα is computationally stronger than TβTβ precisely when TαTα can compute all TβTβ-computable functions ƒ: min2→min2 plus more. The following results are found: Tω1≻TωTω1≻Tω. There are countable ordinals α such (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11. Alan Mathison Turing (2012). Alan Turing's Systems of Logic: The Princeton Thesis. Princeton University Press.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  17
    S. Harnad (2000). Minds, Machines and Turing. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9 (4):425-445.
    Turing's celebrated 1950 paper proposes a very generalmethodological criterion for modelling mental function: total functionalequivalence and indistinguishability. His criterion gives rise to ahierarchy of Turing Tests, from subtotal (toy) fragments of ourfunctions (t1), to total symbolic (pen-pal) function (T2 – the standardTuring Test), to total external sensorimotor (robotic) function (T3), tototal internal microfunction (T4), to total indistinguishability inevery empirically discernible respect (T5). This is areverse-engineering hierarchy of (decreasing) empiricalunderdetermination of the theory by the data. Level t1 is clearly (...)
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  13.  43
    Jack Copeland (1998). Super Turing-Machines. Complexity 4 (1):30-32.
    The tape is divided into squares, each square bearing a single symbol—'0' or '1', for example. This tape is the machine's general-purpose storage medium: the machine is set in motion with its input inscribed on the tape, output is written onto the tape by the head, and the tape serves as a short-term working memory for the results of intermediate steps of the computation. The program governing the particular computation that the machine is to perform is also stored on the (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  14.  58
    B. Jack Copeland & Oron Shagrir (2011). Do Accelerating Turing Machines Compute the Uncomputable? Minds and Machines 21 (2):221-239.
  15. Jon Cogburn & Jason Megill (2010). Are Turing Machines Platonists? Inferentialism and the Computational Theory of Mind. Minds and Machines 20 (3):423-439.
    We first discuss Michael Dummett’s philosophy of mathematics and Robert Brandom’s philosophy of language to demonstrate that inferentialism entails the falsity of Church’s Thesis and, as a consequence, the Computational Theory of Mind. This amounts to an entirely novel critique of mechanism in the philosophy of mind, one we show to have tremendous advantages over the traditional Lucas-Penrose argument.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  16.  13
    B. Jack Copeland & Oron Shagrir (2011). Do Accelerating Turing Machines Compute the Uncomputable? Minds and Machines 21 (2):221-239.
  17. Jack Copeland (1998). Turing's o-Machines, Searle, Penrose, and the Brain. Analysis 58 (2):128-138.
    In his PhD thesis (1938) Turing introduced what he described as 'a new kind of machine'. He called these 'O-machines'. The present paper employs Turing's concept against a number of currently fashionable positions in the philosophy of mind.
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  18.  18
    B. Jack Copeland (1998). Super Turing-Machines. Complexity 4 (1):30-32.
  19.  4
    R. M. Baer (1969). Definability by Turing Machines. Zeitschrift fur mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 15 (20-22):325-332.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20.  4
    G. T. Herman (1968). The Halting Problem of One State Turing Machines Withn-Dimensional Tape. Zeitschrift fur mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 14 (7-12):185-191.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21.  4
    Hao Wang (1957). Universal Turing Machines: An Exercise in Coding. Zeitschrift fur mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 3 (6-10):69-80.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22. Otto Lappi & Anna-Mari Rusanen (2011). Turing Machines and Causal Mechanisms in Cognitive Science. In Phyllis McKay Illari, Federica Russo & Jon Williamson (eds.), Causality in the Sciences. Oxford University Press 224--239.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  23.  16
    Hyun Song Shin & Timothy Williamson (1994). Representing the Knowledge of Turing Machines. Theory and Decision 37 (1):125-146.
  24.  24
    Pavel Tichý (1969). Intension in Terms of Turing Machines. Studia Logica 24 (1):7 - 25.
  25.  43
    Vann McGee (1991). We Turing Machines Aren't Expected-Utility Maximizers (Even Ideally). Philosophical Studies 64 (1):115 - 123.
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  26.  79
    J. J. Clarke (1972). Turing Machines and the Mind-Body Problem. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 23 (February):1-12.
  27.  32
    Crispin Wright (1995). Intuitionists Are Not (Turing) Machines. Philosophia Mathematica 3 (1):86-102.
    Lucas and Penrose have contended that, by displaying how any characterisation of arithmetical proof programmable into a machine allows of diagonalisation, generating a humanly recognisable proof which eludes that characterisation, Gödel's incompleteness theorem rules out any purely mechanical model of the human intellect. The main criticisms of this argument have been that the proof generated by diagonalisation (i) will not be humanly recognisable unless humans can grasp the specification of the object-system (Benacerraf); and (ii) counts as a proof only on (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  28.  74
    Aaron Sloman (2002). The Irrelevance of Turing Machines to AI. In Matthias Scheutz (ed.), Computationalism: New Directions. MIT Press
  29.  12
    Emmanuel Jeandel (2012). On Immortal Configurations in Turing Machines. In S. Barry Cooper (ed.), How the World Computes. 334--343.
  30.  7
    David Barker-Plummer, Turing Machines. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  31.  17
    Martin Davis (1997). Minsky ML. Size and Structure of Universal Turing Machines Using Tag Systems. Recursive Function Theory, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, Vol. 5, American Mathematical Society, Providence 1962, Pp. 229–238. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 31 (4):655-655.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32.  19
    Neil D. Jones & Alan L. Selman (1974). Turing Machines and the Spectra of First-Order Formulas. Journal of Symbolic Logic 39 (1):139-150.
  33. M. D. Davis & Martin Davis (1970). A Note on Universal Turing Machines. Journal of Symbolic Logic 35 (4):590-590.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  34.  8
    Patrick C. Fischer (1969). Quantificational Variants on the Halting Problem for Turing Machines. Zeitschrift fur mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 15 (13‐15):211-218.
  35. Martin Davis (1966). Review: Corrado Bohm, On a Family of Turing Machines and the Related Programming Language. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 31 (1):140-140.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36.  8
    Gabor T. Herman (1969). The Unsolvability of the Uniform Halting Problem for Two State Turing Machines. Journal of Symbolic Logic 34 (2):161-165.
  37.  5
    Ricardo Pereira Tassinari & Itala M. Loffredo D'Ottaviano (2007). " Cogito Ergo Sum Non Machina!" About Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem and Turing Machines. Cogito 7:3.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38.  4
    R. M. Baer (1969). Definability by Turing Machines. Mathematical Logic Quarterly 15 (20‐22):325-332.
  39.  4
    Martin Davis (1996). Böhm Corrado. On a Family of Turing Machines and the Related Programming Language. ICC Bulletin, Vol. 3 (1964), Pp. 185–194. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 31 (1):140-140.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40.  3
    H. B. Enderton (1975). Review: Shen Lin, Tibor Rado, Computer Studies of Turing Machine Problems; Allen H. Brady, The Conjectured Highest Scoring Machines for Rado's $Sum(K)$ for the Value $K = 4$; Milton W. Green, A Lower Bound on Rado's Sigma Function for Binary Turing Machines. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 40 (4):617-617.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41.  3
    G. T. Herman (1968). The Halting Problem of One State Turing Machines with N‐Dimensional Tape. Mathematical Logic Quarterly 14 (7‐12):185-191.
  42.  3
    Andrew Moore (2009). From Spangled Hamburghs to Turing Machines: Evolution – the Outer Reaches. Bioessays 31 (2):129-129.
  43.  3
    R. J. Nelson (1970). Review: M. D. Davis, A Note on Universal Turing Machines; Martin Davis, The Definition of Universal Turing Machine. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 35 (4):590-590.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44. Michael Arbib (1970). Turing Machines, Finite Automata and Neural Nets. Journal of Symbolic Logic 35 (3):482-482.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  45. John Mccarthy (1970). The Inversion of Functions Defined by Turing Machines. Journal of Symbolic Logic 35 (3):481-481.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  46.  2
    Patrick C. Fischer (1970). Review: John McCarthy, The Inversion of Functions Defined by Turing Machines. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 35 (3):481-481.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47.  2
    Albert A. Mullin (1970). Review: R. Frejvald, Complexity of Recognition of Symmetry on Turing Machines with Input; A. M. Barzdin, Complexity of Recognition of Symmetry on Turing Machines. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 35 (1):159-159.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48.  2
    Gunter Asser (1968). Review: Seiiti Huzino, Simulatability of Finite Automata by Schepherdson and Sturgis' Machines; Seiiti Huzino, On the Simulation of Real-Time Turing Machines by a Modified Schepherdson-Sturgis' Machine. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 33 (4):628-629.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49.  1
    Hao Wang (1957). Universal Turing Machines: An Exercise in Coding. Mathematical Logic Quarterly 3 (6‐10):69-80.
  50.  1
    Gabor T. Herman (1971). Review: Patrick C. Fischer, On Formalisms for Turing Machines; Stal Aanderaa, Patrick C. Fischer, The Solvability of the Halting Problem for 2-State Post Machines; Patrick C. Fischer, Quantificational Variants on the Halting Problem for Turing Machines. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 36 (3):532-534.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 1000