Results 1 
6 of
6
Hypercomputation: computing more than the Turing machine
, 2002
"... In this report I provide an introduction to the burgeoning field of hypercomputation – the study of machines that can compute more than Turing machines. I take an extensive survey of many of the key concepts in the field, tying together the disparate ideas and presenting them in a structure which al ..."
Abstract

Cited by 31 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this report I provide an introduction to the burgeoning field of hypercomputation – the study of machines that can compute more than Turing machines. I take an extensive survey of many of the key concepts in the field, tying together the disparate ideas and presenting them in a structure which allows comparisons of the many approaches and results. To this I add several new results and draw out some interesting consequences of hypercomputation for several different disciplines. I begin with a succinct introduction to the classical theory of computation and its place amongst some of the negative results of the 20 th Century. I then explain how the ChurchTuring Thesis is commonly misunderstood and present new theses which better describe the possible limits on computability. Following this, I introduce ten different hypermachines (including three of my own) and discuss in some depth the manners in which they attain their power and the physical plausibility of each method. I then compare the powers of the different models using a device from recursion theory. Finally, I examine the implications of hypercomputation to mathematics, physics, computer science and philosophy. Perhaps the most important of these implications is that the negative mathematical results of Gödel, Turing and Chaitin are each dependent upon the nature of physics. This both weakens these results and provides strong links between mathematics and physics. I conclude that hypercomputation is of serious academic interest within many disciplines, opening new possibilities that were previously ignored because of long held misconceptions about the limits of computation.
Computing the noncomputable
 Contemporary Physics
"... We explore in the framework of Quantum Computation the notion of computability, which holds a central position in Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science. A quantum algorithm that exploits the quantum adiabatic which is equivalent to the Turing halting problem and known to be mathematically non ..."
Abstract

Cited by 30 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We explore in the framework of Quantum Computation the notion of computability, which holds a central position in Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science. A quantum algorithm that exploits the quantum adiabatic which is equivalent to the Turing halting problem and known to be mathematically noncomputable. Generalised quantum algorithms are also considered for some other mathematical noncomputables in the same and of different noncomputability classes. The key element of all these algorithms is the measurability of both the values of physical observables and of the quantummechanical probability distributions for these values. It is argued that computability, and thus the limits of Mathematics, ought to be determined not
Computation and Hypercomputation
 MINDS AND MACHINES
, 2003
"... Does Nature permit the implementation of behaviours that cannot be simulated computationally? We consider the meaning of physical computationality in some detail, and present arguments in favour of physical hypercomputation: for example, modern scientific method does not allow the specification o ..."
Abstract

Cited by 15 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Does Nature permit the implementation of behaviours that cannot be simulated computationally? We consider the meaning of physical computationality in some detail, and present arguments in favour of physical hypercomputation: for example, modern scientific method does not allow the specification of any experiment capable of refuting hypercomputation. We consider the implications of relativistic algorithms capable of solving the (Turing) Halting Problem. We also reject as a fallacy the argument that hypercomputation has no relevance because noncomputable values are indistinguishable from sufficiently close computable approximations. In addition to
Hypercomputability of quantum adiabatic processes: facts versus prejudices
 http://arxiv.org/quantph/0504101
, 2005
"... Abstract. We give an overview of a quantum adiabatic algorithm for Hilbert’s tenth problem, including some discussions on its fundamental aspects and the emphasis on the probabilistic correctness of its findings. For the purpose of illustration, the numerical simulation results of some simple Diopha ..."
Abstract

Cited by 12 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We give an overview of a quantum adiabatic algorithm for Hilbert’s tenth problem, including some discussions on its fundamental aspects and the emphasis on the probabilistic correctness of its findings. For the purpose of illustration, the numerical simulation results of some simple Diophantine equations are presented. We also discuss some prejudicial misunderstandings as well as some plausible difficulties faced by the algorithm in its physical implementations. “To believe otherwise is merely to cling to a prejudice which only gives rise to further prejudices... ” 1
Quantum Principles and Mathematical Computability
, 2008
"... Taking the view that computation is after all physical, we argue that physics, particularly quantum physics, could help extend the notion of computability. Here, we list the important and unique features of quantum mechanics and then outline a quantum mechanical “algorithm” for one of the insoluble ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
Taking the view that computation is after all physical, we argue that physics, particularly quantum physics, could help extend the notion of computability. Here, we list the important and unique features of quantum mechanics and then outline a quantum mechanical “algorithm” for one of the insoluble problems of mathematics, the Hilbert’s tenth and equivalently the Turing halting problem. The key element of this algorithm is the computability and measurability of both the values of physical observables and of the quantummechanical probability distributions for these values. The fact is that quantum computers can prove theorems by methods that neither a human brain nor any other Turingcomputational arbiter will ever be able to reproduce. What if a quantum algorithm delivered a theorem that it was infeasible to prove classically. No such algorithm is yet known, but nor is anything known to rule out such a possibility, and this raises a question of principle: should we still accept such a theorem as undoubtedly proved? We believe that the rational answer ot this question is yes, for our confidence in quantum proofs rests upon the same foundation as our confidence in classical proofs: our acceptance of the physical laws underlying the computing operations. D. Deustch, A. Ekert and R. Lupacchini [1] 1