MHB Formal vs. informal - Numerical Functions

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of "effectively computable" functions in both informal and formal senses. "Effectively" refers to the existence of an algorithm that can compute the function for each value in its domain, with the implication that this computation can be performed using reasonable resources, such as time and storage. The conversation emphasizes that "reasonable" is defined within the context of computation theory rather than engineering. To clarify, a function is considered computable in the formal sense if it adheres to precise definitions associated with universal computation models like Turing machines. The Church-Turing thesis posits that informal and formal computability are equivalent. The dialogue also touches on the nuances of terminology, particularly the distinction between "effectively" and "efficiently," which may vary across languages.
agapito
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
The literature mentions "functions that are effectively computable in the informal sense". What is meant by that? It would be helpful to have an example involving "informal sense" vs. "formal sense" for some numerical function.

All help appreciated. am
 
Technology news on Phys.org
It would be helpful to know the context. If "effectively" means "with reasonable resources, i.e., time and storage", then it means precisely that: with reasonable resources, which is not a precise judgment. We could make it more precise, for example, by saying that the function is computable in polynomial time, or in time $O(t^5)$ on an unlimited register machine. If "effectively" means computable at all, then it means there is an something like an algorithm, which can be implemented on reasonable devices like a modern computer with unlimited memory. Here "reasonable" means in the context of computation theory, not engineering. For example, a pushdown automaton is not a reasonable device because its computational power is known to be strictly less than that of a Turing machine. Showing that a function is computable in the formal sense would involve showing that it is computable according to a precise definition of some universal device, such as Turing machines, Markov algorithms, Kleene recursive functions, etc. The Church-Turing thesis says that the informal and the formal senses of computability coincide.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
It would be helpful to know the context. If "effectively" means "with reasonable resources, i.e., time and storage", then it means precisely that: with reasonable resources, which is not a precise judgment. We could make it more precise, for example, by saying that the function is computable in polynomial time, or in time $O(t^5)$ on an unlimited register machine. If "effectively" means computable at all, then it means there is an something like an algorithm, which can be implemented on reasonable devices like a modern computer with unlimited memory. Here "reasonable" means in the context of computation theory, not engineering. For example, a pushdown automaton is not a reasonable device because its computational power is known to be strictly less than that of a Turing machine. Showing that a function is computable in the formal sense would involve showing that it is computable according to a precise definition of some universal device, such as Turing machines, Markov algorithms, Kleene recursive functions, etc. The Church-Turing thesis says that the informal and the formal senses of computability coincide.[/QUOTE

Thank you very much. So, if we state that a function is effectively computable in the informal sense, we are simply acknowledging the existence of an algorithm that can be used to compute it for each value of its domain. Is that correct?

Again thanks a lot for helping me out, agapito
 
I would say, yes. Plus, if "effectively" is a statement about resources, then the algorithm takes reasonable time and storage. But it may sound this way to me only because in Russian there are no two different words for "effectively" and "efficiently". I am not sure "effective" is about resources here. (Smile)
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
I would say, yes. Plus, if "effectively" is a statement about resources, then the algorithm takes reasonable time and storage. But it may sound this way to me only because in Russian there are no two different words for "effectively" and "efficiently". I am not sure "effective" is about resources here. (Smile)

Thanks again for your patience, you have been very helpful. agapito
 
Thread 'Is this public key encryption?'
I've tried to intuit public key encryption but never quite managed. But this seems to wrap it up in a bow. This seems to be a very elegant way of transmitting a message publicly that only the sender and receiver can decipher. Is this how PKE works? No, it cant be. In the above case, the requester knows the target's "secret" key - because they have his ID, and therefore knows his birthdate.
I tried a web search "the loss of programming ", and found an article saying that all aspects of writing, developing, and testing software programs will one day all be handled through artificial intelligence. One must wonder then, who is responsible. WHO is responsible for any problems, bugs, deficiencies, or whatever malfunctions which the programs make their users endure? Things may work wrong however the "wrong" happens. AI needs to fix the problems for the users. Any way to...
Back
Top