Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 141–164

Mirror notation: symbol manipulation without inscription manipulation

  • Roy A. Sorensen
Article

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.

algorithmic complexity computation Cambridge event duals mirror NP-completeness symbol manipulation Turing machine 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Cajori, F. (1929) A History of Mathematical Notation, Open Court, Chicago.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Casati, R. and Varzi, A. (1998) “True and False: An Exchange”, typescript.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clark, A. and Chalmers, D. (1998) The extended mind, Analysis 58(1), 7–19.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Copeland, J. (1998b) Turing's O-machines, Searle, Penrose and the brain, Analysis 58(2), 128–138.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fodor, J. (1987) Psychosemantics, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gardner, M. (1990) The New Ambidextrous Universe, W. H. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
  8. 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. 9.
    Geach, P. (1969) God and the Soul, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gregory, R. (1997) Mirrors in Mind, W. H. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horst, S. W. (1996) Symbols, Computation, and Intentionality, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ittleson, W. H., Mowafy, L. and Magid, D. (1991) The perception of mirror-reflected objects, Perception 20, 567–584.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim, S. (1989) Inversions, Byte Books, Peterborough, New Hampshire.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Langton, R. and Lewis, D. (1998) Defining 'Intrinsic', Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57(2), 333–345.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manly, P. L. (1991) Unusual Telescopes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ramsey, F. (1927) Facts and Propositions, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supp. vol. 7, 153–170.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sorensen, R. (1998) How to Subtract with a Mirror, typescript.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thomas, D. E. (1980) Mirror Images, Scientific American, 206–228.Google Scholar
  20. 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

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roy A. Sorensen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyNew York UniversityU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations