In article <6i7h70$gij at ux.cs.niu.edu> rickert at cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>andersw+ at pitt.edu (Anders N Weinstein) writes:
>>If you are including "analog" computation, that may be true.
>>There are things that are being done by the computer on my desk that
>I could not map into a Turing machine.
>>I'm not talking 'analog'. My concern is with interaction. A Turing
>machine is not interactive. A person is, and the computer on my desk
>is.
I'm not sure that you could be much more incorrect if you tried. In
point of fact, the interactivity not only can be, but *IS* mapped
into a Turing machine (via the RAM formalism, via the implementation
as a large memory machine).
Your CPU, for example, doesn't manipulate the video screen
directly -- instead it puts a specific set of symbols to a
specific bit of tape area, and the video hardware performs the
mapping.
-kitten