[TYPES] FInCo 2005: FOUNDATIONS OF INTERACTIVE COMPUTATION -- CFP

[Goldin, Dina]

Antonio,
-------------------------------------
   I think that nowadays computer science evolved to a point where
there is no concrete reason to still believe that the classical
theory of computation serves as a suitable theory for real computers.
Not mention the need for support for new developments in computers.

...

2) interaction arguments: real computers are interactive machine.
This comes well from the work of P.Wegner and D.Goldin work, and others,
and goes hand in hand with the shortcomings of CTC exposed by process
theory and theories of reactive systems, since their beginnings.

...
 
Mandatory remark: the perment TM of P.Wegner and Dina does not fall
into this class of extension: it was conceived precisely to surpass the
CTC, not to sustain it beyond its limit!
===============
 
You may be interested to know that Information & Computation Journal 
will soon (hopefully in 2004) be publishing a paper by myself, Scott 
Smolka et al formalizing PTMs (the model you mention) and presenting 
results about its expressiveness.  It also contains a "sequential interaction
thesis", which is an analogue of Turing's thesis for function-based
computation, in our case for Wegner's notion of "sequential interaction".  
While sequential interaction does not capture multi-agent concurrent 
computation, it does capture some of the examples of interactive 
computation that have been mentioned in this thread, e.g. by Bill
Rounds.
 
I also have an article with Wegner, currently a Brown University
technical report called "The Origins of the Turing Thesis Myth" that 
relates to this discussion.  It makes light and hopefully interesting 
reading.  Both papers can be found on my web site.
 
Dina
===================
 
Computer Science & Engineering Dept. 
University of Connecticut 
371 Fairfield Rd., Unit 2155 
Storrs, CT 06269