Talk:Theory of computation
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Theory of computation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archive: /1
Computation as a explanation of the mind
editThis is a discussion that is becoming increasingly popular: Can computation as it is defined act as an adequate model of the way an organic neurological system behaves? In other words does the theory of computation give us any further understanding of the mind? This is a topic of both philosophy and computer science/AI. My feelings on this matter are that our understanding of the function of machines is misleading, often the way it is perceived that a computer works is actually far from the reality of what the machine is doing. This is similar to the problems of introspective thinking that led to ideas like Cartesian Dualism. So, can we (as intelligent animals) be described in terms of symbol manipulation and finite state machines? I’m not so convinced, but at the same time I don’t completely reject the notion. Katateochi 09:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a discussion of related computation vs conscience in the talk pages of Computer science. It is a very hard debate. Some of taken the debate very personal because it does examine oneself to a point. The Turing machine does not handle conscience or other functions, as it is stated in the Turing-Church thesis (and more in follow-ups). Some think computation goes beyond that while others do not. There is no proof. — Dzonatas 14:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Use of the term Regular Expression
editThe use of the term regular expression in this article is misleading, as regular expressions in Unix tools and Perl recognize non-regular languages, through the backreference operators (\1 \2 ...). So mentioning regular expressions in a sentence with Unix tools and Perl, then saying that FSA are mathematically equivalent to regular expressions makes use of both senses of the term. --jonsafari 23:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Move Other formal definitions of computation to Computability
editI have copied the section Theory_of_computation#Other formal definitions of computation to the Computability article and will just be leaving a stub here. I think this article should be fairly brief and mainly just disambiguate to computability and complexity and this section gave too much detail a level down in the computability branch. Dmcq (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- As the person who suggested the section move, I can only agree :) Pcap ping 18:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
certification in Theory of computation
editIS THERE ANY CERTIFICATION TO DO IN THEORY OF COMPUTATION??
58.68.66.251 (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)SVM Lesson 1-1 Computer Fundamentals [1-1 Computer Fundamentals ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicckymm123 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
P′′ as a major model
editIt seem to me that this " P " should be a minor subsection of the model of computation article, not a major subdivision here. Any comments? --121.45.201.112 (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Models of computation section is not overly detailed
editUse of the following template seems unwarranted:
 | This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. (February 2015) |
because the section provides a concise overview of other available models.
Therefore, I have removed it.