Turing Machines, Transition Systems, and Interaction

Abstract We present Persistent Turing Machines (PTMs), a new way of interpreting Turing-machine computation, one that is both interactive and persistent. We show that the class of PTMs is isomorphic to a very general class of effective transition systems. One may therefore conclude that the extensions to the Turing-machine model embodied in PTMs are sufficient to make Turing machines expressively equivalent to transition systems. We also define the persistent stream language (PSL) of a PTM and a corresponding notion of PSL-equivalence, and consider the infinite hierarchy of successively finer equivalences for PTMs over finite interaction-stream prefixes. We show that the limit of this hierarchy is strictly coarser than PSL-equivalence, a “gap” whose presence can be attributed to the fact that the transition systems corresponding to PTM computations naturally exhibit unbounded nondeterminism. We also consider amnesic PTMs and a corresponding notion of equivalence based on amnesic stream languages (ASLs). It can be argued that amnesic stream languages are representative of the classical view of Turing-machine computation. We show that the class of ASLs is strictly contained in the class of PSLs. Furthermore, the hierarchy of PTM equivalence relations collapses for the subclass of amnesic PTMs. These results indicate that, in a stream-based setting, the extension of the Turing-machine model with persistence is a nontrivial one, and provide a formal foundation for reasoning about programming concepts such as objects with static attributes.

[1]  David Harel,et al.  Statecharts: A Visual Formalism for Complex Systems , 1987, Sci. Comput. Program..

[2]  Michael Prasse,et al.  Why Church's Thesis Still Holds. Some Notes on Peter Wegner's Tracts on Interaction and Computability , 1998, Comput. J..

[3]  Bernhard Thalheim,et al.  IS=DBS+Interaction: Towards Principles of Information System Design , 2000, ER.

[4]  David May Millenial Perspectives in Computer Science , 2000 .

[5]  Philippe Darondeau,et al.  Concurrency and Computability , 1990, Semantics of Systems of Concurrent Processes.

[6]  Peter Wegner,et al.  Interactive , 2021, Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

[7]  Jan van Leeuwen,et al.  On Algorithms and Interaction , 2000, MFCS.

[8]  Gilles Kahn,et al.  The Semantics of a Simple Language for Parallel Programming , 1974, IFIP Congress.

[9]  Nancy A. Lynch,et al.  Distributed Algorithms , 1992, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[10]  G. Boudol,et al.  Notes on Algebraic Calculi of Processes , 1989, Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems.

[11]  Jan A. Bergstra,et al.  On the Consistency of Koomen's Fair Abstraction Rule , 1987, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[12]  Alexander Moshe Rabinovich,et al.  Communication among Relations (Extended Abstract) , 1990, ICALP.

[13]  Gérard Berry,et al.  The Esterel Synchronous Programming Language: Design, Semantics, Implementation , 1992, Sci. Comput. Program..

[14]  Frits W. Vaandrager,et al.  Expressiveness results for process algebras , 1993 .

[15]  Amir Pnueli,et al.  What is in a Step: On the Semantics of Statecharts , 1991, TACS.

[16]  Robin Milner,et al.  Communication and concurrency , 1989, PHI Series in computer science.

[17]  Prakash Panangaden,et al.  Stability and Sequentiality in Dataflow Networks , 1990, ICALP.

[18]  Faron Moller,et al.  Verification on Infinite Structures , 2001, Handbook of Process Algebra.

[19]  Antonio Bucciarelli,et al.  Sequentiality in an Extensional Framework , 1994, Inf. Comput..

[20]  Robert de Simone,et al.  Higher-Level Synchronising Devices in Meije-SCCS , 1985, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[21]  Jack B. Dennis,et al.  First version of a data flow procedure language , 1974, Symposium on Programming.

[22]  J. Bergstra,et al.  Handbook of Process Algebra , 2001 .

[23]  Peter Wegner,et al.  Interaction as a Framework for Modeling , 1997, Conceptual Modeling.

[24]  Dina Q. Goldin Persistent Turing Machines as a Model of Interactive Computation , 2000, FoIKS.

[25]  Gordon D. Plotkin,et al.  Concrete Domains , 1993, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[26]  Javier Esparza,et al.  Efficient Algorithms for Model Checking Pushdown Systems , 2000, CAV.

[27]  D. Harrison,et al.  Vicious Circles , 1995 .

[28]  Samson Abramsky Concurrent Interaction Games , 2000 .

[29]  Gilles Kahn,et al.  Coroutines and Networks of Parallel Processes , 1977, IFIP Congress.

[30]  Dina Q. Goldin Information Systems = Databases + Interaction: Towards Principles of Information System Design , 2000 .

[31]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  Reactive Modules , 1999, Formal Methods Syst. Des..

[32]  Albert R. Meyer,et al.  Bisimulation can't be traced , 1988, POPL '88.

[33]  B. Engquist,et al.  Mathematics Unlimited: 2001 and Beyond , 2001 .

[34]  Jan van Leeuwen,et al.  The Turing machine paradigm in contemporary computing , 2001 .

[35]  Peter Wegner,et al.  Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms , 1997, CACM.

[36]  Krzysztof R. Apt,et al.  Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems , 1989, NATO ASI Series.

[37]  Robin Milner,et al.  A Calculus of Mobile Processes, II , 1992, Inf. Comput..

[38]  Peter Wegner,et al.  Interactive Software Technology , 1997, The Computer Science and Engineering Handbook.

[39]  Prakash Panangaden,et al.  Computations, Residuals, and the POwer of Indeterminancy , 1988, ICALP.

[40]  Jeffrey D. Ullman,et al.  Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages and Computation , 1979 .