Whether or not there exist physically realizable computations that are not computable by a turing machine is an open question, but most physicists and computational complexity theorists seem to believe there does not exist such a class.
Whether or not there exist physically realizable computations that are not computable by a turing machine is an open question, but most physicists and computational complexity theorists seem to believe there does not exist such a class.
what does it mean?
I'm familiar with the Turing thesis but he's wrong.
You're going to have to back up a statement like that with a whole lot of supporting evidence if you want to be taken seriously.
I know Scott Aaronson and all, but I won't believe it until someone tries to build one and fails.
Could you at least explain in what way you think he is wrong. Surely you must guess how participants on a programming forum will react to a statement like that.
Look into the work of Lenora Blum. She wrote a book "Complexity and Real computation".