Abstract
This paper develops my (forthcoming) criticisms of the philosophical significance of a certain sort of infinitary computational process, a hyperloop. I start by considering whether hyperloops suggest that “effectively computable” is vague (in some sense). I then consider and criticise two arguments by Hogarth, who maintains that hyperloops undermine the very idea of effective computability. I conclude that hyperloops, on their own, cannot threaten the notion of an effective procedure.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Benacerraf, P.: Tasks, Super-Tasks, and the Modern Eleatics. Journal of Philosophy 59, 765–784 (1962)
Button, T.: SAD Computers and two versions of the Church-Turing Thesis. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (forthcoming)
Davies, E.B.: Building Infinite Machines. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52, 671–682 (2001)
Dummett, M.: Hume’s Atomism about Events: a response to Ulrich Meyer. Philosophy 80, 141–144 (2005)
Earman, J., Norton, J.D.: Forever is a Day: Supertasks in Pitowsky and Malament-Hogarth Spacetimes. Philosophy of Science 60, 22–42 (1993)
Etesi, G., Németi, I.: Non-Turing Computations via Malament-Hogarth space-times. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 41, 341–370 (2002)
Hamkins, J.D., Lewis, A.: Infinite Time Turing Machines. Journal of Symbolic Logic 65, 567–604 (2000)
Hogarth, M.: Does General Relativity Allow an Observer to View an Eternity in a Finite Time? Foundations of Physics Letters 5, 173–181 (1992)
Hogarth, M.: Non-Turing Computers and Non-Turing Computability. In: Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994, vol. 1, pp. 126–138 (1994)
Hogarth, M.: Deciding Arithmetic using SAD computers. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55, 681–691 (2004)
Hogarth, M.: Non-Turing Computers are the New Non-Euclidean Geometries. International Journal of Unconventional Computing 5, 277–291 (2009a)
Hogarth, M.: A New Problem for Rule Following. Natural Computing (2009b)
Lakatos, I.: Proofs and Refutations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1976)
Németi, I., Dávid, G.: Relativistic Computers and the Turing Barrier. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computation 178, 118–142 (2006)
Smith, P.: An Introduction to Gödel’s Theorems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)
Shapiro, S.: Computability, Proof, and Open-Texture. In: Olszewski, A., Wolenski, J., Janusz, R. (eds.) Church’s Thesis After 70 Years, pp. 420–455. Ontos Verlag (2006)
Thomson, J.: Tasks and Supertasks. Analysis 15, 1–10 (1954)
Welch, P.D.: The Extent of Computation in Malament-Hogarth Spacetimes. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59, 659–674 (2008)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Button, T. (2009). Hyperloops Do Not Threaten the Notion of an Effective Procedure. In: Ambos-Spies, K., Löwe, B., Merkle, W. (eds) Mathematical Theory and Computational Practice. CiE 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5635. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03073-4_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03073-4_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-03072-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-03073-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)