Skip to main content
Log in

Mirror notation: symbol manipulation without inscription manipulation

  • Published:
Journal of Philosophical Logic Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Stereotypically, computation involves intrinsic changes to the medium of representation: writing new symbols, erasing old symbols, turning gears, flipping switches, sliding abacus beads. Perspectival computation leaves the original inscriptions untouched. The problem solver obtains the output by merely alters his orientation toward the input. There is no rewriting or copying of the input inscriptions; the output inscriptions are numerically identical to the input inscriptions. This suggests a loophole through some of the computational limits apparently imposed by physics. There can be symbol manipulation without inscription manipulation because symbols are complex objects that have manipulatable elements besides their inscriptions. Since a written symbol is an ordered pair of consisting of a shape and the reader's orientation to that inscription, the symbol can be changed by changing the orientation rather than inscription. Although there are the usual physical limits associated with reading the answer, the computation is itself instantaneous. This is true even when the sub-calculations are algorithmically complex, exponentially increasing or even infinite.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Cajori, F. (1929) A History of Mathematical Notation, Open Court, Chicago.

  2. Casati, R. and Varzi, A. (1998) “True and False: An Exchange”, typescript.

  3. Clark, A. and Chalmers, D. (1998) The extended mind, Analysis 58(1), 7–19.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Copeland, J. (1998a) Even Turing machines can compute uncomputable functions, in C. S. Calude, J. Casti and M. J. Dinneen (eds), Unconventional Models of Computation, Spinger-Verlag.

  5. Copeland, J. (1998b) Turing's O-machines, Searle, Penrose and the brain, Analysis 58(2), 128–138.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fodor, J. (1987) Psychosemantics, MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gardner, M. (1990) The New Ambidextrous Universe, W. H. Freeman, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Garey, M. R. and Jonson, D. S. (1979) Computers and Intractibility: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness, W. H. Freeman, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Geach, P. (1969) God and the Soul, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gregory, R. (1997) Mirrors in Mind, W. H. Freeman, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Horst, S. W. (1996) Symbols, Computation, and Intentionality, University of California Press, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ittleson, W. H., Mowafy, L. and Magid, D. (1991) The perception of mirror-reflected objects, Perception 20, 567–584.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kim, S. (1989) Inversions, Byte Books, Peterborough, New Hampshire.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Langton, R. and Lewis, D. (1998) Defining 'Intrinsic', Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57(2), 333–345.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Manly, P. L. (1991) Unusual Telescopes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ramsey, F. (1927) Facts and Propositions, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supp. vol. 7, 153–170.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Slutz, R. (1976) Taped interview with R. Slutz, in The Pioneers of Computing: an Oral History of Computing (issued by the Science Museum, London), the Turing Archive, University of Canterbury. This information was supplied by Jack Copeland.

  18. Sorensen, R. (1998) How to Subtract with a Mirror, typescript.

  19. Thomas, D. E. (1980) Mirror Images, Scientific American, 206–228.

  20. Zellweger, S. (1997) Untapped potential in Peirce's iconic notation for the sixteen binary connectives, in N. Houser, D. D. Roberts, and J. Van Evra (eds.), Studies in the Logic of Charles Sanders Peirce, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, pp. 334–386.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sorensen, R.A. Mirror notation: symbol manipulation without inscription manipulation. Journal of Philosophical Logic 28, 141–164 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004307405785

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004307405785

Navigation