Abstract model of computation, Theory of Computation

When we say "solved algorithmically" we are not asking about a speci?c programming language, in fact one of the theorems in computability is that essentially all reasonable programming languages are equivalent in their power. Rather, we want to know if there is an algorithm for solving it that can be expressed in any rigorous way at all. Similarly, we are not asking about whether the problem can be solved on any particular computer, but whether it can be solved by any computing mechanism, including a human using a pencil and paper (even a limitless supply of paper).

What we need is an abstract model of computation that we can treat in a rigorous mathematical way. We'll start with the obvious model:

1190_Abstract model of computation.png

Here a computer receives some input (an instance of a problem), has some computing mechanism, and produces some output (the solution of that instance). We will refer to the con?guration of the computing mechanism at a given point in it's processing as its internal state. Note that in this model the computer is not a general purpose device: it solves some speci?c problem. Rather, we consider a general purpose computer and a program to both be part of a single machine. The program, in essence, specializes the computer to solve a particular problem.

Posted Date: 3/20/2013 5:52:57 AM | Location : United States







Related Discussions:- Abstract model of computation, Assignment Help, Ask Question on Abstract model of computation, Get Answer, Expert's Help, Abstract model of computation Discussions

Write discussion on Abstract model of computation
Your posts are moderated
Related Questions
We will assume that the string has been augmented by marking the beginning and the end with the symbols ‘?' and ‘?' respectively and that these symbols do not occur in the input al


The key thing about the Suffx Substitution Closure property is that it does not make any explicit reference to the automaton that recognizes the language. While the argument tha

Both L 1 and L 2 are SL 2 . (You should verify this by thinking about what the automata look like.) We claim that L 1 ∪ L 2 ∈ SL 2 . To see this, suppose, by way of con

What is the purpose of GDTR?

To see this, note that if there are any cycles in the Myhill graph of A then L(A) will be infinite, since any such cycle can be repeated arbitrarily many times. Conversely, if the

how to prove he extended transition function is derived from part 2 and 3


Let there L1 and L2 . We show that L1 ∩ L2 is CFG . Let M1 be a decider for L1 and M2 be a decider for L2 . Consider a 2-tape TM M: "On input x: 1. copy x on the second

turing machine for prime numbers