<p>I am not completely sure that why computable functions is defined as a subset of all functions from/to Natural Numbers, but as far as I know, computation comes from real (physical) world so instructions, inputs and outputs should be finite (intuitively, because a human or machine can not complete a task which contains infinite amount of steps, with finite steps (or finite amount of time). I wonder that can I imagine a computing model which can accept real numbers as its inputs and outputs, and a program is again a real number (or equivalently all programs in this computational model is set theoretically isomorphic to real numbers).</p>

<p>For example, I imagine that a one dimensional empty space (physically) and a particle in that space which moves with a constant velocity. And I see that universe as a computing machine (it takes a real number which is bigger or equal than <span class="math-container">$0$</span> representing the time (I think that nonnegativeness is not a problem for this situation because again nonnegative real numbers set theoretically isomorphic to real number) and it gives anothor real number which represents position of the particle). Of course this universe computes only constant slope functions (<span class="math-container">$ax+b$</span>). This example can be extended to much bigger subsets of the all functions from <span class="math-container">$\mathbb R$</span> to <span class="math-container">$\mathbb R$</span> (I guess that it should be a proper subset because of the cardinality issues). Although, this model is an abstract model (because of the measurement issues) theoretically it looks like that it is possible.</p>

<p>Lets call this computational model as <span class="math-container">$\mathbb R$</span>-computable. How can I determine which functions is <span class="math-container">$\mathbb R$</span>-computable?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-21T18:15:16.000Z
-1 While in theory this could be a research level question, the specific questions you ask seem more appropriate for the normal computer science site. On top of that, you did not take the time to use latex or revise your post, so why should someone else take the time to answer it?
exfret
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-21T22:56:46.350Z
I'm not sure what your question is.  Your first paragraph complains that a model of computation should be based on finite entities and asks why computability isn't defined that way.  Then, your second paragraph proposes a model of computation with real numbers (hence not finite, and hard to square with your first paragraph).  In any case you should ask only one question per post.  If you have multiple questions, they should be posted separately.
D.W.
<computability>
Is there an alternative technique to define computable functions other than their definition on natural numbers?
Faruk CEBECİ
# Is there an alternative technique to define computable functions other than their definition on natural numbers?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-09-21)

I am not completely sure that why computable functions is defined as a subset of all functions from/to Natural Numbers, but as far as I know, computation comes from real (physical) world so instructions, inputs and outputs should be finite (intuitively, because a human or machine can not complete a task which contains infinite amount of steps, with finite steps (or finite amount of time). I wonder that can I imagine a computing model which can accept real numbers as its inputs and outputs, and a program is again a real number (or equivalently all programs in this computational model is set theoretically isomorphic to real numbers).

For example, I imagine that a one dimensional empty space (physically) and a particle in that space which moves with a constant velocity. And I see that universe as a computing machine (it takes a real number which is bigger or equal than $0$ representing the time (I think that nonnegativeness is not a problem for this situation because again nonnegative real numbers set theoretically isomorphic to real number) and it gives anothor real number which represents position of the particle). Of course this universe computes only constant slope functions ($ax+b$). This example can be extended to much bigger subsets of the all functions from $\mathbb R$ to $\mathbb R$ (I guess that it should be a proper subset because of the cardinality issues). Although, this model is an abstract model (because of the measurement issues) theoretically it looks like that it is possible.

Lets call this computational model as $\mathbb R$-computable. How can I determine which functions is $\mathbb R$-computable?

**Tags:** computability
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: -1 While in theory this could be a research level question, the specific questions you ask seem more appropriate for the normal computer science site. On top of that, you did not take the time to use latex or revise your post, so why should someone else take the time to answer it?  
> **username_2**: I'm not sure what your question is.  Your first paragraph complains that a model of computation should be based on finite entities and asks why computability isn't defined that way.  Then, your second paragraph proposes a model of computation with real numbers (hence not finite, and hard to square with your first paragraph).  In any case you should ask only one question per post.  If you have multiple questions, they should be posted separately.  

---

## 0 answers

