> a running program is only using syntactic operations Can someone help me understand under what conditions a machine is "only using syntactic operations". Is Von Neumann architecture required? Parallel processing ok? A Turing machine required? Is storage of states and a clock required or is an analog device ok? Surely "using syntactic operations" does not mean that "it is running a program" as the syntax of the program is just a function of the user interface for the compiler not a function of the target systems execution of the complied program. In fact different syntax can be used to achieve the same result at run time and the same syntax could be used to cause a completely different execution just by changing the compiler. If I have a simple button labeled "Start" then there is a syntax to the labeling of the button. That does not mean depressing the button is a "syntactical operation". Does it? So called "machine language" are typically just physical (usually electrical) states of a device which when "execution" is initiated, by pressing the run key for example, cause a cascade of physical processes. Sometimes those processes result in states that are interpretable according to the rules of some language (as in the CRA taken literally does) but not always. Is it required that the output be a language? Is a chimp operating syntactically? Only when he communicates with other chimps or when he reaches for a banana peels it and eats it while sitting alone? I suspect that unraveling the CRA comes down to understanding what "using syntactic operations" means precisely. Or has the term been expanded so much that any device that is assumed to operate according to some formal rule or "physics" is syntactic? At least what does it mean in this proof and in this conversation? ========================================== Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/