17 March 2015

A new kind of infinite machines

Since David Hilbert’s thought experiment, it is popular to demonstrate the strangeness of infinities describing a hotel with infinite rooms where new and new tourists/tourist groups arrives (even in a countably infinite number). The trick is that although all the rooms are full, the management always can find free ones – after rearranging the reservations. I.e. if only one tourist wants to check in, then the person occupying room 1 is can be moved to room 2; and the occupier of room 2 to room 3 etc. (and the occupier of room n moves to room n+1). If a countably infinite amount of new guest arrives, then the person from room 1 moves to room 2; the person from room 2 to room 4 (from room n to room 2n). After all, there as many odd as even numbers and the new visitors can occupy the odd-numbered rooms that are free now. This method works even if countably infinitely many buses arrives with countably infinitely many passengers on each.
The infinite hotel is misleading in a certain way, since it suggests that these algorithms are the simplest solutions for pairing the rooms and visitors. But there is a simpler method: at the time of the arriving of a new group with even countably infinitely visitors, we can ask every occupier to leave their room – the result is infinitely many free room with infinitely many persons (including the newly arrived ones) without room. Then we ask everybody to go into a still free places – and that’s all: we paired infinitely many persons with infinitely many rooms.
Keeping in mind the lesson of the infinite hotel, we can introduce a new kind of infinite machines with a new typology.
From our point of view, there are two fundamental parameters to determine these machines: the number of steps of the process to reach infinity and the needed time.
It’s obvious that there are impossible machines. You cannot build a machine that solve a problem in zero time even it infinitely fast; and similarly impossible that version that takes only finite number of steps in an infinitely long period – but not because it halts at a certain point in the process (i.e. since it is prescribed that it has to stop after a certain number of steps or reaching a number), but because – as a reversed Thomson lamp – its algorithm prescribes it.
So the simplest infinite machine is a Turing machine with an infinite tape – it can take infinitely many steps over an infinitely long period (and every step can be paired with the moment of the step).
Opposite to it, a Tomson's lamp takes infinitely many steps within a finite period of time. The solution is that 1+1/2+1/4…=2 so if we can press the Thomson lamp’s button two times faster at the n+1st step than at the nth step, then we can finish the process within 2 unit of time (i.e. within two seconds, if it took 1 second to press the button for the first time).
But it is possible a third type of infinite machine. Obviously, the last time we press the Thompson lamp’s button we have to do it infinitely fast, and the pressing process is infinitely short. It means on the one hand, that we handle (at least mathematically) an infinitely small amount. On the other hand: Why should we vary the pressing time to reach our aim? It is possible theoretically to press the button infinitely fast even for the first time; and even an infinitely small time is enough to do it infinitely many times. So this infinite machine finish its process not in infinite time (as a Turing machine) and not in a finite time (as a Thomson lamp), but in an infinitely short time.

machine type number of steps time
Impossible zero infinite zero
Impossible finite finite infinite
Turing infinite infinite
Tomson lamp infinite finite
Third type infinite infinitely small

5 comments:

  1. Why would we think that there is a "last" step that is infinitely short? It is like saying that there is a last natural number, that is infinitely big. What if I take a step that is half as long as any last step we say "this is the last infinitely short" step?

    If we do not have these infinitely short steps however we can't define the "Third type" infinite machines. If I'm correct.

    * On the other hand, what if we do not stop switching Thomson's lamp at the end of the hour, but we follow the rule to an other hour? Can we do this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments.
      As far as I know, the last step is infinitely short because the logic of math prescribes it (1+1/2+1/4... etc.) Obviously, this - and every - infinite machine is a philosophical abstraction, and it is based on the presupposition that infinity is accessible (after infinitely many steps:-).

      Delete
    2. I understand: both the concept of the "last" element and the the whole process is (presumably) a mathematical abstraction. I've read an article yesterday that argues that there is a definite solution: infinity is even "value" if we take the set theoretic definition of arithmetic as all infinite sets can be divided to two sets with the same cardinality. I don't know whether this has any kind of mathematical significance, but it is quite interesting.

      http://somethingworthreading.org/first-known-solution-to-thomsons-lamp/#comment-260

      Delete
    3. thank you, I really enjoyed it:-)

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete