Yeah, maybe I misunderstood the part about the molecules of gas “representing” the states of Turing machine, but my first reaction is that it’s not enough to declare that X represents Y, it must also be true that the functionality of X corresponds to the functionality of Y.
I can say that my sock is a calculator, and that this thread represents the number 2 and this thread represents the number 3, but unless it somehow actually calculates 2+3, such analogy is useless.
Similarly, it is not enough to say that a position of a molecule represents a state of a Turing machine, there must also be a way how the rules of the TM actually constrain the movement of the molecule.
Yeah, maybe I misunderstood the part about the molecules of gas “representing” the states of Turing machine, but my first reaction is that it’s not enough to declare that X represents Y, it must also be true that the functionality of X corresponds to the functionality of Y.
I can say that my sock is a calculator, and that this thread represents the number 2 and this thread represents the number 3, but unless it somehow actually calculates 2+3, such analogy is useless.
Similarly, it is not enough to say that a position of a molecule represents a state of a Turing machine, there must also be a way how the rules of the TM actually constrain the movement of the molecule.
Yeah, something like that. See my response to Euan in the other reply to my post.