Comparing Computational Power
From MaRDI portal
Abstract: It is common practice to compare the computational power of different models of computation. For example, the recursive functions are strictly more powerful than the primitive recursive functions, because the latter are a proper subset of the former (which includes Ackermann's function). Side-by-side with this "containment" method of measuring power, it is standard to use an approach based on "simulation". For example, one says that the (untyped) lambda calculus is as powerful--computationally speaking--as the partial recursive functions, because the lambda calculus can simulate all partial recursive functions by encoding the natural numbers as Church numerals. The problem is that unbridled use of these two ways of comparing power allows one to show that some computational models are strictly stronger than themselves! We argue that a better definition is that model A is strictly stronger than B if A can simulate B via some encoding, whereas B cannot simulate A under any encoding. We then show that the recursive functions are strictly stronger in this sense than the primitive recursive. We also prove that the recursive functions, partial recursive functions, and Turing machines are "complete", in the sense that no injective encoding can make them equivalent to any "hypercomputational" model.
Recommendations
Cited in
(11)- What is the Church-Turing Thesis?
- An RNA-based theory of natural universal computation
- The computational power of \({\mathcal M}^\omega\)
- Honest computability and complexity
- Honest universality
- Three paths to effectiveness
- New Computational Paradigms
- A Natural Axiomatization of Computability and Proof of Church's Thesis
- Freudenthal ranks: GHZ versus W
- A hypercomputational alien
- The Church-Turing Thesis over Arbitrary Domains
This page was built for publication: Comparing Computational Power
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q3424114)
