International Journal of Theoretical Physics

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 341–370 | Cite as

Non-Turing Computations Via Malament–Hogarth Space-Times

  • Gábor Etesi
  • István Németi


We investigate the Church–Kalmár–Kreisel–Turing theses theoretical concerning (necessary) limitations of future computers and of deductive sciences, in view of recent results of classical general relativity theory. We argue that (i) there are several distinguished Church–Turing-type theses (not only one) and (ii) validity of some of these theses depend on the background physical theory we choose to use. In particular, if we choose classical general relativity theory as our background theory, then the above-mentioned limitations (predicted by these theses) become no more necessary, hence certain forms of the Church–Turing thesis cease to be valid (in general relativity). (For other choices of the background theory the answer might be different.) We also look at various “obstacles” to computing a nonrecursive function (by relying on relativistic phenomena) published in the literature and show that they can be avoided (by improving the “design” of our future computer). We also ask ourselves, how all this reflects on the arithmetical hierarchy and the analytical hierarchy of uncomputable functions.


Field Theory General Relativity Elementary Particle Quantum Field Theory Recent Result 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andréka, H., Madarász, J. X., and Németi, I. (1999). Logical analysis of special relativity theory. In Essays Dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the Occasion of His 50th Birthday [CD-ROM], J. Gerbrandy, M. Marx, M. de Rijke, and Y. Yenema, Vossiuspress, Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Andréka, H., Madarász, J. X., Németi, I., with contributions from Andai, A., Sági, G., Sain, I., and Téke, Cs. (2000). On the Logical Structure of Relativity Theories, Alfréd Rényi Institute of Mathematics, Budapest, Hungary. Also available at Scholar
  3. Burko, L. M. and Ori, A. (1995). Are physical objects necessarily burnt up by the blue sheet inside a black hole? Physics Review Letters 74, 1064–1066.Google Scholar
  4. Earman, J. (1995). Supertasks. In Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers and Shrieks, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  5. Earman, J. and Norton, J. D. (1993). Forever is a day: Supertasks in Pitowsky and Malament-Hogarth space-times. Philosophical Science 60, 22–42.Google Scholar
  6. Earman, J. and Norton, J. D. (1996). Infinite pains: The problem with supertask. In Benaceraff and His Critics, A. Morton and S. Stick, eds., Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  7. Earman, J. and Norton, J. D. (1998). Comments on Laraudogoitia's “Classical particles dynamics, indeterminism and supertasks.” British Journal of Philosophy of Science 49, 123–133.Google Scholar
  8. Gandy, R. O. (1980). Church's Thesis and principles for mechanics. In Kleene Symposium, J. Barwise, H. J. Keisler, K. Kunen, eds., North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 123–148.Google Scholar
  9. Grünbaum, A. (1969). Can an infinitude of operations be performed in a finite time? British Journal of Philosophy of Science 20, 203–218.Google Scholar
  10. Hamkins, J. D. and Lewis, A. (2000). Infinite time Turing machines. Journal of Symbolic Logic 65(2), 567–604.Google Scholar
  11. Hawking, S. W. and Ellis, G. F. R. (1973). The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  12. Hogarth, M. L. (1994). In Non-Turing Computers and Non-Turing Computability, Vol. 1, D. Hull, M. Forbens, and R. M. Burian, eds., Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, pp. 126–138.Google Scholar
  13. Hogarth, M. L. (in press). Deciding arithmetic in Malament-Hogarth space-time. British Journal of Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
  14. Kennefick, D. and Ori, A. (1996). Radiation-reaction induced evolution of circular orbits of particles around Kerr black holes. Physical Review D: Particles and Fields 53, 4319–4326.Google Scholar
  15. Kieu, T. D. (2001). Quantum algorithm for the Hilbert's tenth problem. arXiv: hep-th/0110136.Google Scholar
  16. Kreisel, G. (1965). In Lectures in Modern Mathematics, Vol. 3, Mathematical Logic, T. L. Saaty, ed., Wiley, New York, pp. 95–195.Google Scholar
  17. Mazur, P. O. (1984). Black hole uniqueness from a hidden symmetry of Einstein's gravity. General Relativity and Gravity 16, 211–215.Google Scholar
  18. Melia, F. (2000). The heart of the Milky Way. American Scientist, July-Aug., 346–353.Google Scholar
  19. Ng, Y. J. (2000). Clocks, computers, black holes, spacetime foam and Holographic Principle. In Proceedings of Conference Held at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, July 31-Aug. 4, 2000. hep-th/0010234, see also gr-qc/0006105.Google Scholar
  20. -(1987). Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 28(4).Google Scholar
  21. Odifreddi, P. (1989). Classical Recursion Theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  22. O'Neill, B. (1995). The Geometry of Kerr Black Holes, AK Peters, Wellesley, MA.Google Scholar
  23. Ori, A. (1991). Inner structure of a charged black hole: An exact mass-inflation solution. Physics Review Letters 67, 789–792.Google Scholar
  24. Ori, A. (1992). Structure of the singularity inside a realistic rotating black hole. Physics Review Letters 68, 2117–2120.Google Scholar
  25. Ori, A. (1995). Radiative evolution of orbits around a Kerr black hole. Physics Letters A 202, 347–351.Google Scholar
  26. Ori, A. (1997). On the traversability of the Cauchy horizon: Herman and Hiscock's argument revisited. Annals of the Israel Physical Society 13 (Special issue on Internal structures of black holes and spacetime singularities).Google Scholar
  27. Pitowsky, I. (1990). The physical Church Thesis and physical computational complexity. Iyyun 39, 81–99.Google Scholar
  28. Poisson, E. and Israel, W. (1990). Internal structure of black holes. Physical Review D: Particles and Fields 41, 1796–1809.Google Scholar
  29. Pour-El, M. B. and Richards, J. I. (1989). Computability in Analysis and Physics, Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  30. Wald, R. M. (1984). General Relativity, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Yukawa Institute for Theoretical PhysicsKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  2. 2.Alfréd Rényi Mathematical Institute of the Hungarian Academy of ScienceBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations