Formal-ity and the Church-Turing thesis

[Ravi Sahni]

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:47 AM, rusi <rustompmody at gmail.com> wrote:
> I can only say how ironic it sounds to someone who is familiar with the history of our field:
> Turing was not a computer scientist (the term did not exist then) but a mathematician.  And his major contribution was to create a form of argument so much more rigorous than what erstwhile mathematicians were used to that he was justified in calling that math as a machine.
>
> The irony is that today's generation assumes that 'some-machine' implies its something like 'Intel-machine'.
> To get out of this confusion ask yourself: Is it finite or infinite?
> If the TM were finite it would be a DFA
> If the Intel-machine (and like) were infinite they would need to exist in a different universe.

With due respect Sir, you saying that Turing machine not a machine?
Very confusion Sir!!!

>
> And so when you understand that TMs are just a kind of mathematical rewrite system (as is λ calculus as are context free grammars as is school arithmetic etc etc) you will not find the equivalence so surprising



-- 
Ravi