> >Anyway. The "causal operations" which make computers worth money to
> >a business are outside the computers themselves.(modlin)
>> No, I disagree. They are in the computer.(NR)
This question is off the beaten track, but this looks like an
opportune moment to sneak it in.
I was reading about those mainframes which calculate many digits
of pi. Maybe a billion digits in nine hours, anyway a lot.
I think I recall reading that the output will differ slightly
from one model computer running the pi algorithm to another.
Even I think if two of the same make and model are used.
I am not sure for the reason behind this. Suppes has said
something about: If a system has two or more degrees of
freedom the system will be subject to sensitivity to initial
conditions. So I am thinking in the pi calculation situation
that due to random electronic or magnetic eddies perhaps
from impurities in the components, this causes the divergence
in the output of pi.
I have read something about this but am not sure I understood it,
so would like clarification. I think Turing may have made a
comment about this to a schoolteacher. He studied dynamic systems
in 1951.
So I wonder if some AI system, emulating a human, experienced
an internal random fluctuation, might this cause an output if
it happened at the right moment that could drastically differ
from an expected human output? Say in answering a question.
I have also heard about the need for a randomness generator for
an AI system. Is this already inherent in the physical system?
I think I have read about the equivalency of CAs NNs indeterministic
turing machines to turing machines. They can all be simulated
because they are all 'computable'. Is this right?
Also I read a comment(not sure of its reliability) that connectionist
models challenge the idea that turing machines are the only type
of physically realizable computer. I'm not sure I worded that
right so answer what it is supposed to mean. :-)
Finally, about analog chips. Apparently, high frequency discrete
responses will not sufficiently model analog human brain processes.
Is that right? I see this analog issue coming up frequently. It
seems to me that I have seen noise mentioned as a problem.
Best Regards,
Stephen
