In the April issue of the Communications of
the ACM, Peter Wegner and Dina Goldin have a
technical opinion entitled Computation Beyond Turing
Machines. From the article: "Turing machines are
inappropriate as a universal foundation for computational problem
solving and computer science is a fundamentally non-mathematical
discipline". Those are fighting words and luckily I have this
weblog to fight back.
Wegner and Goldin's main argument is summed up towards the end of the
article. "In the last two decades, computing technology has
shifted from mainframes and microstations to networks and wireless
devices, with the corresponding shift in applications from number
crunching and data processing to embedded systems and graphical user
interfaces. We believe it is no longer premature to encompass
interaction as part of computation. A paradigm shift is necessary in
our notion of computational problem solving, so it can provide a
complete model for the services of today's computing systems and
software agents."
In here they have a good point. The area of human-computer interaction
is sometimes more art than science. But while the basic
model of the Turing machine is a sequential device, theoretical
computer scientists have come up with variations that capture networks
and other aspects of interaction, some of which are described in the
Wegner-Goldin article. And all of these new models can be simulated by
Turing machines. The Turing machine remains supreme as the model that
captures all computation.
Far more troubling is the following: "Gödel had shown in 1931
that logic cannot model mathematics and Turing showed that
neither logic nor algorithms can completely model computing and human
thought." This is a complete misreading of Gödel and
Turing. Not every mathematical statement has a logical proof, but
logic does capture everything we can prove in mathematics, which is
really what matters. Likewise, Turing machines captures everything we
can compute. And what we can compute is what computer science is all about.
I just ran across the cited article and my reaction was quite similar. I'll have to see a much better grounded argument before I'll be ready to accept that modern computers can compute problems a turing machine cannot.