Talk:Abstract machine

About "Parallel TE abstract machine"
Classical abstract machines and automata theory lead with the SEQUENCIAL approach. If we open here to concurrent/parellel models, it will be add a "new universe", and it is not closed to the usual approaches: only sequential is a "well closed" theory. Communicating sequential processes (CSP) is a abstract machine?? We can show relationships... but caution with a NEW TAXONOMY (see Flynn's Taxonomy and others). -- Krauss octuber 2006.

Olds
Question is a abstract machine which has an implementation (i.e. a virtual machine) not abstract anymore? What about the Warren Abstract Machine (WAM) then?

What is the precise difference in the definition between abstract machine and virtual machine?

Model of Computation and Abstract Machine
Unless I am radically mistaken at how broad the notion of Abstract machine is not every model of computation is going to be an abstract machine. For instance models of computation allowing computation in structures other than the integers (like the reals) or other abstract notions that don't involve the idea of machine at any point.

Do recursive functions even count as a model of computation? They are defined as just the smallest class of functions containing certain basic functions and closed under mu recursion. If I haven't gotten around to doing it yet could someone else who knows what they are talking about take a stab at making a seperate page for Model of Computation

Logicnazi

Source for taxonomy
Where does the taxonomy in section 1 come from? The use of Linnean ranks and the numbering are not standard in the field of automata theory. Gdr 13:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the editor who added it is still with us, I've solicited him on this talk page. JMP EAX (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

From van Emde Boas, but indirectly. So I've removed it and all references to it. What you're left with here is a piece of garbage aka worse-than-stub. Wvbailey (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You could have taken out just the "genification" you've added which is not in van Emde Boas. JMP EAX (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree however that the FOLDOC material plus the random bag of machines listed after it is very weak sauce. JMP EAX (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

CA
Don't cellular automata, such as Conway's Game of Life, deserve some mention here? I mean, the Game of Life is simple, somewhat well known, and Turing-complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesin (talk • contribs) 02:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Abstract Machine
I propose we reword the old second paragraph:

In the theory of computation, abstract machines are often used in thought experiments regarding computability or to analyze the complexity of algorithms (see computational complexity theory). A typical abstract machine consists of a definition in terms of input, output, and the set of allowable operations used to turn the former into the latter. The best-known example is the Turing machine. (Italics mine.)

Doesn't "or" mean "in other words" here? It could mean as in "either or"?

Does "former" refer to "thought experiment"? And what does "later" refer to? "Later" refers to the completed model, the abstract machine itself?

May we say, (and I attempt to copy the exact idea):

In the theory of computation, abstract machines are used in thought experiments regarding computability in general, and in order to analyze the complexity of algorithms in particular. (See computational complexity theory). To analyze an algorithm an abstract machine must first be defined (typically terms of input, output, and the set of allowable operations). The abstract machine then becomes the theoretical platform from which to analyze algorithms. The best-known example of an abstract machine is the Turing machine.

 Cp i r al  Cpiral  04:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstract machine versus automaton
It seems pretty clear to me that both abstract machines and automatons are models of computation, and it's apparently also the case that they aren't identical. I feel the article could do a better job of distinguishing these models, or if it turns out they are really the same, then the two articles should probably be merged. 75.139.254.117 (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Deleuze/Guattari
Removing the Deleuze/Guattari reference. If the “abstract machine” concept from D+G’s work isn’t important enough to appear in either man’s Wikipedia entry, it more than stands to reason that it isn’t needed here. Jlaffan (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)