Beyond the Turing Limit: Evolving Interactive Systems

Modern networked computing systems follow scenarios that differ from those modeled by classical Turing machines. For example, their architecture and functionality may change over time as components enter or disappear. Also, as a rule their components interact with each other and with the environment at unpredictable times and in unpredictable manners, and they evolve in ways that are not pre-programmed. Finally, although the life span of the individual components may be finite, the life span of the systems as a whole is practically unlimited. The examples range from families of cognitive automata to (models of) the Internet and to communities of intelligent communicating agents.We present several models for describing the computational behaviour of evolving interactive systems, in order to characterize their computational power and efficiency. The analysis leads to new models of computation, including 'interactive' Turing machines (ITM's) with advice and new, natural characterizations of non-uniform complexity classes. We will argue that ITM's with advice can serve as an adequate reference model for capturing the essence of computations by evolving interactive systems, showing that 'in theory' the latter are provably more powerful than classical systems.

[1]  Mogens Nielsen,et al.  Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science 2000 , 2001, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[2]  José L. Balcázar,et al.  Structural Complexity I , 1995, Texts in Theoretical Computer Science An EATCS Series.

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

[4]  Leslie G. Valiant,et al.  Circuits of the mind , 1994 .

[5]  Richard J. Lipton,et al.  Some connections between nonuniform and uniform complexity classes , 1980, STOC '80.

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

[7]  Samir Chatterjee,et al.  All-optical networks , 1999, Commun. ACM.

[8]  Gérard Berry,et al.  The foundations of Esterel , 2000, Proof, Language, and Interaction.

[9]  Jirí Wiedermann,et al.  Theory of neuromata , 1998, JACM.

[10]  Anna Slobodová,et al.  On the Power of Synchronization in Parallel Computations , 1989, MFCS.

[11]  Luca Cardelli Global computation , 1997, SIGP.

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

[13]  J. van Leeuwen,et al.  A computational model of interaction in embedded systems , 2001 .

[14]  G. Plotkin,et al.  Proof, language, and interaction: essays in honour of Robin Milner , 2000 .

[15]  Jirí Wiedermann The Computational Limits to the Cognitive Power of the Neuroidal Tabula Rasa , 1999, ALT.

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

[17]  Jan van Leeuwen,et al.  Emergence of a Super-Turing Computational Potential in Artificial Living Systems , 2001, ECAL.

[18]  Jirí Wiedermann On the Power of Synchronization , 1989, J. Inf. Process. Cybern..

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

[20]  P. Boas Machine models and simulations , 1991 .

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

[22]  Chris Hanson,et al.  Amorphous computing , 2000, Commun. ACM.

[23]  J. Van Leeuwen,et al.  Handbook of theoretical computer science - Part A: Algorithms and complexity; Part B: Formal models and semantics , 1990 .