Logic machines

We mentioned in (Section II.A) the influence exerted on this work by people who conceive logical machines (notably J. Florine). It was noted that our initial purposes were widely different (theirs essentially synthetic, our essentially analytic). Here we find ourselves back in close contact with automaticians, this time with similar, synthetic aims. 

Essentially, we have a formal (i.e. a logical, machine processable) declaration of two properties, one being a unique identifier for the document in question, and the other a unique identifier for one molecule mentioned within the body of its text, the latter being further processable to infer it has the trivial name (another predicate, if a rather fuzzy one ) of glucose. This knowledge can be inferred automatically, and would not need a human to accomplish. 

Hennie, F. C., "Finite-State Models for Logical Machines" Wiley, New York, 1968. 

Logic Machines, Calculating Machines, and Computers. The algebraization of logic, primarily the work of De Moi n and Boole, was important to the transformation of Aristotelian logic into modern... 

In 1869, British logician William S. Jevons, a student of the mathematician Augustus De Morgan, created a logic machine that used Boolean algebra. The popular machine was known as the logic piano because it had ivory keys and resembled a piano. 

It is, of course, impossible to allow for all possible variations of equation requirements and machine capabihty, but it is hoped that the nomenclature in the table presented at the beginning or the section will prove adequate for most purposes and will be capable of logical extension to other more specialized requirements. 

Using the influence coefficient technique for multiplane balancing is simply an extension of the logic, which is hardwired into the standard balancing machine. This extension has been made possible by the availability of better electronics and easier access to computers. 

The basis for evaluation of piston speed varies throughout industry. This indicates that the subject is spiced with as much emotion as technical basics. An attempt to sort out the fundamentals will be made. First, because there are so many configurations and forms of the reciprocating compressor, it would appear logical that there is no one piston speed limit that will apply across the board to all machines. The manufacturer is at odds with the user because he would like to keep the speed up to keep the size of the compressor down, while the user would like to keep the speed down for reliability purposes. As is true for so many other cases, the referee is the economics. An obvious reason to limit the speed is maintenance... 

A simulation model has entities (e.g. machines, materials, people, etc.) and activities (e.g. processing, transporting, etc.). It also has a description of the logic governing each activity. For example, a processing activity can only start when a certain quantity of working material is available, a person to run the machine and an empty conveyor to take away the product. Once an activity has started, a time to completion is calculated, often using a sample from a statistical distribution. 

The systems that use dynamic alert/alarm limits base their logic on the rate of change of vibration amplitude. Any change in the vibration amplitude is a direct indication that there is a corresponding change in the machine s mechanical condition. However, there should be a maximum acceptable limit, i.e. absolute fault. 

Von Neumann was able to construct a self-reproducing UTM embedded within a 29-state/5-cell neighborhood two-dimensional cellular automaton, composed of several tens of thousands of cells. It was, to say the least, an enormously complex machine . Its set of 29 states consist largely of various logical building blocks (AND and OR gates, for example), several types of transmission lines, data encoders and recorders, clocks, etc. Von Neumann was unfortunately unable to finish the proof that his machine was a UTM before his death, but the proof was later completed and published by Arthur Burks [vonN66]. 

Von Neumann s machine is actually an example of a universal constructor. It must not only carry out logical operations (i.e. act as a universal computer), but must also be able to identify and manipulate various components. The universal constructor C must be able to both (1) construct the machine whose blueprint appears in symbolic form on its input tape and (2) attach a copy of that same blueprint to the machine once it is constructed. Self-reproduction is the special case where C s input tape actually contains the blueprint data for C itself. Alas, there are a few subtleties. 

Iaing75a] Laing, R. Artificial Molecular Machines A Rapproachment Between Kinematic and Tessellation Automata, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Uniformly Structured Automata and Logic, Tokyo (1975). 

---