MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985919329 · doi:10.1142/s012962640600271x

THREE COUNTEREXAMPLES TO DISPEL THE MYTH OF THE UNIVERSAL COMPUTER

2006· article· en· W1985919329 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueParallel Processing Letters · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputability, Logic, AI Algorithms
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTuring machineCounterexampleComputer scienceUniversal Turing machineComputable functionComputationFunction (biology)TuringTheoretical computer scienceDiscrete mathematicsAlgorithmMathematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is shown that the concept of a Universal Computer cannot be realized. Specifically, instances of a computable function [Formula: see text] are exhibited that cannot be computed on any machine [Formula: see text] that is capable of only a finite and fixed number of operations per step. This remains true even if the machine [Formula: see text] is endowed with an infinite memory and the ability to communicate with the outside world while it is attempting to compute [Formula: see text]. It also remains true if, in addition, [Formula: see text] is given an indefinite amount of time to compute [Formula: see text]. This result applies not only to idealized models of computation, such as the Turing Machine and the like, but also to all known general-purpose computers, including existing conventional computers (both sequential and parallel), as well as contemplated unconventional ones such as biological and quantum computers. Even accelerating machines (that is, machines that increase their speed at every step) cannot be universal.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it