Results 1  10
of
94
Learning Stochastic Logic Programs
, 2000
"... Stochastic Logic Programs (SLPs) have been shown to be a generalisation of Hidden Markov Models (HMMs), stochastic contextfree grammars, and directed Bayes' nets. A stochastic logic program consists of a set of labelled clauses p:C where p is in the interval [0,1] and C is a firstorder range ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1057 (71 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Stochastic Logic Programs (SLPs) have been shown to be a generalisation of Hidden Markov Models (HMMs), stochastic contextfree grammars, and directed Bayes' nets. A stochastic logic program consists of a set of labelled clauses p:C where p is in the interval [0,1] and C is a firstorder rangerestricted definite clause. This paper summarises the syntax, distributional semantics and proof techniques for SLPs and then discusses how a standard Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) system, Progol, has been modied to support learning of SLPs. The resulting system 1) nds an SLP with uniform probability labels on each definition and nearmaximal Bayes posterior probability and then 2) alters the probability labels to further increase the posterior probability. Stage 1) is implemented within CProgol4.5, which differs from previous versions of Progol by allowing userdefined evaluation functions written in Prolog. It is shown that maximising the Bayesian posterior function involves nding SLPs with short derivations of the examples. Search pruning with the Bayesian evaluation function is carried out in the same way as in previous versions of CProgol. The system is demonstrated with worked examples involving the learning of probability distributions over sequences as well as the learning of simple forms of uncertain knowledge.
Beyond Turing Machines
"... In this paper we describe and analyze models of problem solving and computation going beyond Turing Machines. Three principles of extending the Turing Machine's expressiveness are identified, namely, by interaction, evolution and infinity. Several models utilizing the above principles are present ..."
Abstract

Cited by 32 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this paper we describe and analyze models of problem solving and computation going beyond Turing Machines. Three principles of extending the Turing Machine's expressiveness are identified, namely, by interaction, evolution and infinity. Several models utilizing the above principles are presented. Other
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.
Beyond The Universal Turing Machine
, 1998
"... We describe an emerging field, that of nonclassical computability and nonclassical computing machinery. According to the nonclassicist, the set of welldefined computations is not exhausted by the computations that can be carried out by a Turing machine. We provide an overview of the field and a phi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 31 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We describe an emerging field, that of nonclassical computability and nonclassical computing machinery. According to the nonclassicist, the set of welldefined computations is not exhausted by the computations that can be carried out by a Turing machine. We provide an overview of the field and a philosophical defence of its foundations.
The many forms of hypercomputation
 Applied Mathematics and Computation
, 2006
"... This paper surveys a wide range of proposed hypermachines, examining the resources that they require and the capabilities that they possess. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 16 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper surveys a wide range of proposed hypermachines, examining the resources that they require and the capabilities that they possess.
Even Turing Machines Can Compute Uncomputable Functions
 Unconventional Models of Computation
, 1998
"... Accelerated Turing machines are Turing machines that perform tasks commonly regarded as impossible, such as computing the halting function. The existence of these notional machines has obvious implications concerning the theoretical limits of computability. 2 1. Introduction Neither Turing nor Post ..."
Abstract

Cited by 15 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Accelerated Turing machines are Turing machines that perform tasks commonly regarded as impossible, such as computing the halting function. The existence of these notional machines has obvious implications concerning the theoretical limits of computability. 2 1. Introduction Neither Turing nor Post, in their descriptions of the devices we now call Turing machines, made much mention of time (Turing 1936, Post 1936). 1 They listed the primitive operations that their devices perform  read a square of the tape, write a single symbol on a square of the tape (first deleting any symbol already present), move one square to the right, and so forth  but they made no mention of the duration of each primitive operation. The crucial concept is that of whether or not the machine halts after a finite number of operations. Temporal considerations are not relevant to the functioning of the devices as described, nor  so we are clearly supposed to believe  to the soundness of the proofs that Turi...
A Framework for Modelling Trojans and Computer Virus Infection
, 1999
"... this paper will show that viruses pose theoretical problems also. Indeed, this paper, by laying out some of these problems, begs many questions that raise many further research questions. Some of these research questions will be pointed out explicitly throughout the paper. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 14 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper will show that viruses pose theoretical problems also. Indeed, this paper, by laying out some of these problems, begs many questions that raise many further research questions. Some of these research questions will be pointed out explicitly throughout the paper.
Physical Hypercomputation and the Church–Turing Thesis
, 2003
"... We describe a possible physical device that computes a function that cannot be computed by a Turing machine. The device is physical in the sense that it is compatible with General Relativity. We discuss some objections, focusing on those which deny that the device is either a computer or computes a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 14 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We describe a possible physical device that computes a function that cannot be computed by a Turing machine. The device is physical in the sense that it is compatible with General Relativity. We discuss some objections, focusing on those which deny that the device is either a computer or computes a function that is not Turing computable. Finally, we argue that the existence of the device does not refute the Church–Turing thesis, but nevertheless may be a counterexample to Gandy’s thesis.
Induction, Pure and Simple
 INFORMATION AND CONTROL 35, 276336 (1977)
, 1977
"... Induction is the process by which we reason from the particular to the general; In this paper we use ideas from the theory of abstract machines and recursion theory to study this process. We focus on pure induction in which the conclusions "go beyond the information given " in the premises from whic ..."
Abstract

Cited by 14 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Induction is the process by which we reason from the particular to the general; In this paper we use ideas from the theory of abstract machines and recursion theory to study this process. We focus on pure induction in which the conclusions "go beyond the information given " in the premises from which they are derived and on simple induction, which is rather a stark kind of induction that deals with computable predicates on the integers in rather straightforward ways. Our basic question is "What are the relationships between the kinds of abstract machinery we bring to bear on the job of doing induction and our ability to do that job well? " Our conclusions are as follows: (1) If we use only the abstract machinery of the digital computer in a computing center (which we assume to be capable of only evaluating totally computable functionals or functionals in 210 of the Arithmetic Hierarchy) then a single inductive procedure can only develop finitely many sound theories. (2) If we use only the abstract machinery of the mathematician (which we assume to be the machinery required to evaluate a functional in 271 of the Arithmetic Hierarchy) then we can develop inductive
The ChurchTuring Thesis over Arbitrary Domains
, 2008
"... The ChurchTuring Thesis has been the subject of many variations and interpretations over the years. Specifically, there are versions that refer only to functions over the natural numbers (as Church and Kleene did), while others refer to functions over arbitrary domains (as Turing intended). Our pu ..."
Abstract

Cited by 12 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The ChurchTuring Thesis has been the subject of many variations and interpretations over the years. Specifically, there are versions that refer only to functions over the natural numbers (as Church and Kleene did), while others refer to functions over arbitrary domains (as Turing intended). Our purpose is to formalize and analyze the thesis when referring to functions over arbitrary domains. First, we must handle the issue of domain representation. We show that, prima facie, the thesis is not well defined for arbitrary domains, since the choice of representation of the domain might have a nontrivial influence. We overcome this problem in two steps: (1) phrasing the thesis for entire computational models, rather than for a single function; and (2) proving a “completeness” property of the recursive functions and Turing machines with respect to domain representations. In the second part, we propose an axiomatization of an “effective model of computation” over an arbitrary countable domain. This axiomatization is based on Gurevich’s postulates for sequential algorithms. A proof is provided showing that all models satisfying these axioms, regardless of underlying data structure, are of equivalent computational power to, or weaker than, Turing machines.