Turing Machines Can Be Efficiently Simulated by the General Purpose Analog Computer

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7876)


The Church-Turing thesis states that any sufficiently powerful computational model which captures the notion of algorithm is computationally equivalent to the Turing machine. This equivalence usually holds both at a computability level and at a computational complexity level modulo polynomial reductions. However, the situation is less clear in what concerns models of computation using real numbers, and no analog of the Church-Turing thesis exists for this case. Recently it was shown that some models of computation with real numbers were equivalent from a computability perspective. In particular it was shown that Shannon’s General Purpose Analog Computer (GPAC) is equivalent to Computable Analysis. However, little is known about what happens at a computational complexity level. In this paper we shed some light on the connections between this two models, from a computational complexity level, by showing that, modulo polynomial reductions, computations of Turing machines can be simulated by GPACs, without the need of using more (space) resources than those used in the original Turing computation, as long as we are talking about bounded computations. In other words, computations done by the GPAC are as space-efficient as computations done in the context of Computable Analysis.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Asarin, E., Maler, O.: Achilles and the tortoise climbing up the arithmetical hierarchy. J. Comput. System Sci. 57(3), 389–398 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ben-Hur, A., Siegelmann, H.T., Fishman, S.: A theory of complexity for continuous time systems. J. Complexity 18(1), 51–86 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blondel, V.D., Bournez, O., Koiran, P., Tsitsiklis, J.N.: The stability of saturated linear dynamical systems is undecidable. J. Comput. System Sci. 62, 442–462 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blum, L., Cucker, F., Shub, M., Smale, S.: Complexity and Real Computation. Springer (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blum, L., Shub, M., Smale, S.: On a theory of computation and complexity over the real numbers: NP-completeness, recursive functions and universal machines. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 21(1), 1–46 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bournez, O., Campagnolo, M.L., Graça, D.S., Hainry, E.: Polynomial differential equations compute all real computable functions on computable compact intervals. J. Complexity 23(3), 317–335 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bournez, O., Graça, D.S., Pouly, A.: On the complexity of solving initial value problems. Submitted to the Conference ISSAC 2012: International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bournez, O., Campagnolo, M.L.: A Survey on Continuous Time Computations. In: New Computational Paradigms. Changing Conceptions of What is Computable, pp. 383–423. Springer, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brattka, V.: The emperor’s new recursiveness: the epigraph of the exponential function in two models of computability. In: Ito, M., Imaoka, T. (eds.) Words, Languages & Combinatorics III, ICWLC 2000, Kyoto, Japan (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bush, V.: The differential analyzer. A new machine for solving differential equations. J. Franklin Inst. 212, 447–488 (1931)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Calude, C.S., Pavlov, B.: Coins, quantum measurements, and Turing’s barrier. Quantum Information Processing 1(1-2), 107–127 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Copeland, B.J.: Accelerating Turing machines. Minds and Machines 12, 281–301 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Copeland, J.: Even Turing machines can compute uncomputable functions. In: Casti, J., Calude, C., Dinneen, M. (eds.) Unconventional Models of Computation (UMC 1998), pp. 150–164. Springer (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Davies, E.B.: Building infinite machines. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52, 671–682 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Graça, D.S., Campagnolo, M.L., Buescu, J.: Computability with polynomial differential equations. Adv. Appl. Math. 40(3), 330–349 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Graça, D.S., Costa, J.F.: Analog computers and recursive functions over the reals. J. Complexity 19(5), 644–664 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ko, K.-I.: Computational Complexity of Real Functions. Birkhäuser (1991)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nyce, J.M.: Guest editor’s introduction. IEEE Ann. Hist. Comput. 18, 3–4 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Odifreddi, P.: Classical Recursion Theory, vol. 1. Elsevier (1989)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pour-El, M.B., Richards, J.I.: Computability in Analysis and Physics. Springer (1989)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shannon, C.E.: Mathematical theory of the differential analyzer. J. Math. Phys. MIT 20, 337–354 (1941)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Siegelmann, H.T., Ben-Hur, A., Fishman, S.: Computational complexity for continuous time dynamics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 83(7), 1463–1466 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sipser, M.: Introduction to the Theory of Computation, 2nd edn. Course Technology (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weihrauch, K.: Computable Analysis: an Introduction. Springer (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LIXEcole PolytechniquePalaiseau CedexFrance
  2. 2.CEDMES/FCTUniversidade do AlgarveFaroPortugal
  3. 3.SQIG /Instituto de TelecomunicaçõesLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations