Don Mikulecky wrote:
>
> Don Mikulecky replies:
> Help me I'm confused? I am sorry if I left off the word "finite" from the
> definition. Clearly I am working with Arbib's definition of a finite Automata.
> It
> doesn't work for the case you asked about. That has to be dealt with in
another
> way. The issue we seem to be dancing around is realizability, not anything
like
> complexity. Maybe I'm missing something?
> Don
>
Don:
Excuse this dumb question. But doesn't the introduction of a continuous
range of possible states simply change this into a fuzzy logic version
of your machine? From what little I know of these operations, we are
still dealing with a deterministic behavior pattern. According to the
fuzzy logic guys I know, whether we exclude the middle of a machine's
choices or not does not change the fundamentals any more than whether it
has parallel operations or not.
We can and do even simulate fuzzy logic on our PC's. I have several
fuzzy logic programs that can do some interesting smart things. So I
think your parallel processing fuzzy logic definition may still be a
simple machine.
Norm McPhail
--------------D6FEA6E2DBCF29110B6B14DC
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="norm.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Norman K. McPhail
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="norm.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:McPhail;Norm
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://204.94.86.93
org:N. K. McPhail & Co.
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:norm@socal.wanet.com
title:Norman K. McPhail
note;quoted-printable:Web site address: http://204.94.86.93=0D=0A
fn:Link to web site: THE DAWN OF HUMAN UNDERSTANDING
end:vcard
--------------D6FEA6E2DBCF29110B6B14DC--