Minds and Machines

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 221–240 | Cite as

Effective Computation by Humans and Machines

  • Oron Shagrir
Article

Abstract

There is an intensive discussion nowadays about the meaning of effective computability, with implications to the status and provability of the Church–Turing Thesis (CTT). I begin by reviewing what has become the dominant account of the way Turing and Church viewed, in 1936, effective computability. According to this account, to which I refer as the Gandy–Sieg account, Turing and Church aimed to characterize the functions that can be computed by a human computer. In addition, Turing provided a highly convincing argument for CTT by analyzing the processes carried out by a human computer. I then contend that if the Gandy–Sieg account is correct, then the notion of effective computability has changed after 1936. Today computer scientists view effective computability in terms of finite machine computation. My contention is supported by the current formulations of CTT, which always refer to machine computation, and by the current argumentation for CTT, which is different from the main arguments advanced by Turing and Church. I finally turn to discuss Robin Gandy's characterization of machine computation. I suggest that there is an ambiguity regarding the types of machines Gandy was postulating. I offer three interpretations, which differ in their scope and limitations, and conclude that none provides the basis for claiming that Gandy characterized finite machine computation.

effective computability Gandy machines human computation machine computation physical computation The Church–Turing Thesis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Astrachan, O.L. (2000), A Computer Science Tapestry: Exploring Programming and Computer Science with C++, US: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  2. Boolos, G.S. and Jeffrey R.C. (1989), Computability and Logic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Church, A. (1936a), 'An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory' American Journal of Mathernatics 58, pp. 345–363. Reprinted in Davis (1965), pp. 88–107.Google Scholar
  4. Church, A. (1936b), 'A Note on the Entscheidungsproblem', Journal of Symbolic Logic 1, pp. 40–41. Reprinted in Davis (1965), pp. 108–115.Google Scholar
  5. Church, A. (1937a), 'Review of Turing (1936)', Journal of Symbolic Logic 2, pp. 42–43.Google Scholar
  6. Church, A. (1937b), 'Review of Post (1936)', Journal of Symbolic Logic 2, p. 43.Google Scholar
  7. Cleland, C. (1993), 'Is the Church–Turing Thesis True?', Minds and Machines 3, pp. 283–312.Google Scholar
  8. Cleland, C. (forthcoming), 'Effective Procedures and Causal Processes', Minds and Machines.Google Scholar
  9. Copeland, B.J. (1996), The Church–Turing Thesis', in J. Perry and E. Zalta, eds., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [http://plato.stanford.edu]Google Scholar
  10. Davis, M. (ed.), (1965) The Undecidable: Basic Papers on Undecidable Propositions, Unsolvable Problems and Computable Functions, NewYork: Raven.Google Scholar
  11. Deutsch, D. (1985), 'Quantum Theory: The Church–Turing Principle and the Universal Quantum Computer',' Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 400, pp. 97–117.Google Scholar
  12. Gandy, R.O. (1980), 'Church's Thesis and Principles of Mechanisms', in J. Barwise, J.J. Keisler and K. Kunen, eds., The Kleene Symposium, Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 123–145.Google Scholar
  13. Gandy, R.O. (1988), 'The Confluence of Ideas in 1936', in Herken, pp. 55–111.Google Scholar
  14. Gödel, K. (1931), 'On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems I', Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 38, pp. 173–198. Translated and Reprinted in Davis (1965) pp. 5–38.Google Scholar
  15. Gödel, K. (1946), 'Remarks Before the Princeton Bicentennial Conference on Problems in Mathematics'. Reprinted in Davis (1965), pp. 84–88.Google Scholar
  16. Harel, D. (1992), Algorithms: The Spirit of Computing (second edition), Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  17. Herken, R.(ed.) (1988). The Universal Turing Machine A Half-Century Survey, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hilbert, D. and Ackermann, W. (1928), Grundzuge der Theoretischen Logic, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. Hilbert, D. and Bernays, P. (1939), Grundlagen der Mathematik II, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Hogarth, M.L. (1994), 'Non-Turing Computers and Non-Turing Computability', Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association (PSA) 1, pp. 126–138.Google Scholar
  21. Hopcroft, J.C. and Ullman, J.D. (1979), Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages and Computation, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  22. Kleene, S.C. (1936), 'General Recursive Functions of Natural Numbers', Mathematische Annalen 112, pp. 727–742. Reprinted in Davis (1965), pp. 236–253.Google Scholar
  23. Kleene, S.C. (1988), 'Turing's Analysis of Computability, and Major Applications of It',' in Herken, pp. 17–54.Google Scholar
  24. Lewis, H.R. and Papadimitriou, C.H. (1981), Elements of the Theory of Computation, Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  25. Mancosu, P. (1999), 'Between Russell and Hilbert: Behmann on the Foundations of Mathematics'.Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 5, pp. 303–330.Google Scholar
  26. Nagin, P. and Impagliazzo J. (1995), Computer Science: A Breadth-First Approach with Pascal, New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  27. Pitowsky, I. (1990), 'The Physical Church Thesis and Physical Computational Complexity', Iyyun 39, pp. 81–99.Google Scholar
  28. Post, E.L. (1936), 'Finitary Combinatory Processes – Formulation I', Journal of Symbolic Logic 1, pp. 103–105. Reprinted in Davis, (1965), pp. 288–291.Google Scholar
  29. Shagrir, O. (1992) 'A Neural Net with Self-Inhibiting Units for the N-Queens Problem', International Journal of Neural Systems 3, pp. 249–252.Google Scholar
  30. Shagrir, O. (1997), 'Two Dogmas of Computationalism' Minds and Machines 7, pp. 321–344.Google Scholar
  31. Shagrir, O. and Pitowsky, I. (forthcoming), 'Physical Hypercomputation and the Church–Turing Thesis', Minds and Machines.Google Scholar
  32. Shepherdson, J.C. (1988), 'Mechanisms for Computing Over Arbitratry Structures', in Herken, pp. 537–555.Google Scholar
  33. Sieg, W. (1994), 'Mechanical Procedures and Mathematical Experience', in A. George, ed., Mathematics and Mind, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 71–117.Google Scholar
  34. Sieg, W. (1997), 'Step by Recursive Step: Church's Analysis of Effective Calculability', Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 2, pp. 154–180.Google Scholar
  35. Sieg, W. (2001), 'Calculation by Man and Machine: Conceptual Analysis', in W. Sieg, R. Sommer and C. Talcott, eds., Reflections on the Foundations of Mathematics (Essays in Honor of Solomon Feferman), Volume 15 of Lectures Notes in Logic, Association of Symbolic Logic, pp. 387–406.Google Scholar
  36. Sieg,W. (forthcoming), 'Calculation byMan andMachine: Mathematical Presentation', Proceedings of the International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science (Cracow, 1999), Kluwer, pp. 246–260.Google Scholar
  37. Sieg,W. and Byrnes, J. (1999), 'An Abstract Model for Parallel Computations: Gandy's Thesis', The Monist 82, pp. 150–164.Google Scholar
  38. Siegelmann, H.T. (1995), 'Computation Beyond Turing Limit', Science 268, pp. 545–548.Google Scholar
  39. Turing, A.M. (1936), 'On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem', Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society (2) 42, pp. 230-265. A correction in 43 (1937), pp. 544–546. Reprinted in Davis (1965), pp. 115–154.Google Scholar
  40. Wolfarm, S. (1985), 'Undecidability and Intractability in Theoretical Physics', Physical Review Letters 54, pp. 735–738.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oron Shagrir
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations