Thanks for this. Sometimes a step-by-step leading by the hand explanation is necessary for people like myself, and it is quite appreciated. I really love these nuts and bolts views under the hood of computing and I feel enriched watching the videos presented by an encouraging and wonderful instructor; it's absolutely fascinating that people have invented this stuff. People are awesome when they put their minds to things... I sure wish I'd been privileged enough to attend class taught by any of the instructors on these channels :0) Thanks Sean and all!
I think it makes sense to have the head of the Turing machine move at every step. If some Turing machine does not move on a given step, it can be combined with the next step because the next step will read the datum written on this step.
Interesting. Have watched all videos so far and yet little mention to how an upgraded version of a Turin machine makes a computer (because it is :) ). The way this topic is put in this video series, makes obvious how fundamental this construction is. That's why, I like the video 'Turing & The Halting Problem' because it explores the limits of this type of machine, and any other type actually.
My question is, what does it mean for a Turing Machine to have each register of the tape have an infinite amount of symbols instead of just a one and a zero? (To prevent the risk this thought experiment going into a higher computational complexity, I will say that the number of characters is a countable infinity.) Does this provide the ideal situation for a given program with the minimal number of registers as possible? (And I for one are for being self-destructive when it comes to Turing Machines, and allowing them to "rewrite" zeroes into zeroes or ones into ones. Because why not? It is so much better that way. And by better, I mean, makes things more complicated.)
You know, I would almost prefer a turing machine which doesn't follow Tibor Rado's method; one which instead keeps the program code on the tape like the Von Neumann architecture. This would allow the turing machine to be a universal turing machine and it just seems like a more pure model.
Really great something that i inconsciously already know but without definiying all these therms.I was like wtf his just explain how cpu bit works then i realised aww that what we call a TM ^^
Thanks for this. Sometimes a step-by-step leading by the hand explanation is necessary for people like myself, and it is quite appreciated. I really love these nuts and bolts views under the hood of computing and I feel enriched watching the videos presented by an encouraging and wonderful instructor; it's absolutely fascinating that people have invented this stuff. People are awesome when they put their minds to things... I sure wish I'd been privileged enough to attend class taught by any of the instructors on these channels :0) Thanks Sean and all!
I like his voice, it's at that right soft, listenable sound
??
More videos Professor! It's really good to hear you explaining!
The professor is a legend
Oh my God. The instruction card finally clicked for me. That took me FOREVER to understand!
I think it makes sense to have the head of the Turing machine move at every step. If some Turing machine does not move on a given step, it can be combined with the next step because the next step will read the datum written on this step.
Blocks
This was an excellent explanation, well done.
Your video is wonderful! Thank you very much
Interesting. Have watched all videos so far and yet little mention to how an upgraded version of a Turin machine makes a computer (because it is :) ).
The way this topic is put in this video series, makes obvious how fundamental this construction is. That's why, I like the video 'Turing & The Halting Problem' because it explores the limits of this type of machine, and any other type actually.
THANK YOU!
My question is, what does it mean for a Turing Machine to have each register of the tape have an infinite amount of symbols instead of just a one and a zero? (To prevent the risk this thought experiment going into a higher computational complexity, I will say that the number of characters is a countable infinity.) Does this provide the ideal situation for a given program with the minimal number of registers as possible?
(And I for one are for being self-destructive when it comes to Turing Machines, and allowing them to "rewrite" zeroes into zeroes or ones into ones. Because why not? It is so much better that way. And by better, I mean, makes things more complicated.)
What if you have multiple heads reading and writing in that same (sending information or not between) time on multiple tapes.
I almost didn't understand the Busy Beaver before this video was posted, now I don't understand why this video wasn't posted before Busy Beaver.
??
@@Triantalex You are 10 years behind, this video would have explained the busy beaver video that was before this
You know, I would almost prefer a turing machine which doesn't follow Tibor Rado's method; one which instead keeps the program code on the tape like the Von Neumann architecture. This would allow the turing machine to be a universal turing machine and it just seems like a more pure model.
Why is this video unlisted?
Just giving you a sneak peek! >Sean
Really great something that i inconsciously already know but without definiying all these therms.I was like wtf his just explain how cpu bit works then i realised aww that what we call a TM ^^
1:41 yes I'm completely masochistic xD
I am confused, but I will watch this video many times.
This could be really simple to program myself, using arrays.
Hey, another ComputerCraft fan. :D
In Photoshop.
Binary Turing Machines just remind me of languages like Brainf*ck. Wonder if that's where they got inspiration.
1:53
professor: "left or right"
editor: "left or write"
i thought this video was gonna be about a specific turing machine writing down prime numbers
These videos are quite recursive in themselves. Rabbit hole of annotations.
probably that doesn't work in other number systems, octal or hex
yiis machin praimerr
Nice guy, but too hard to follow.
j balvin
nikita dragun
jordan peterson