The Grossone methodology perspective on

Turing machines

Yaroslav D. Sergeyev and Alfredo Garro

Abstract This chapter discusses how the mathematical language used to describe
and to observe automatic computations influences the accuracy of the obtained
results. The chapter presents results obtained by describing and observing dif-
ferent kinds of Turing machines (single and multi-tape, deterministic and non-
deterministic) through the lens of a new mathematical language named Grossone.
This emerging language is strongly based on three methodological ideas borrowed
from Physics and applied to Mathematics: the distinction between the object (indeed
mathematical object) of an observation and the instrument used for this observation;
interrelations holding between the object and the tool used for the observation; the
accuracy of the observation determined by the tool. In the chapter, the new results
are compared to those achievable by using traditional languages. It is shown that
both languages do not contradict each other but observe and describe the same ob-
ject (Turing machines) but with different accuracies.

1 Introduction

Turing machines represent one of the simple abstract computational devices that can
be used to investigate the limits of computability . In this chapter, they are consid-
ered from several points of view that emphasize the importance and the relativity of

Yaroslav D. Sergeyev
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Informatica, Modellistica, Elettronica e Sistemistica (DIMES), Uni-
versità della Calabria, Rende (CS), Italy.
N.I. Lobatchevsky State University, Nizhni Novgorod, Russia.
Istituto di Calcolo e Reti ad Alte Prestazioni, C.N.R., Rende (CS), Italy.
e-mail: [email protected]
Alfredo Garro
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Informatica, Modellistica, Elettronica e Sistemistica (DIMES), Uni-
versità della Calabria, Rende (CS), Italy.
e-mail: [email protected]

1
2 Yaroslav D. Sergeyev and Alfredo Garro

mathematical languages used to describe the Turing machines. A deep investigation

is performed on the interrelations between mechanical computations and their math-
ematical descriptions emerging when a human (the researcher) starts to describe a
Turing machine (the object of the study) by different mathematical languages (the
instruments of investigation).
In particular, we focus our attention on different kinds of Turing machines (single
and multi-tape, deterministic and non-deterministic) by organizing and discussing
the results presented in [42] and [43] so to provide a compendium of our multi-year
research on this subject.
The starting point is represented by numeral systems 1 that we use to write down
numbers, functions, models, etc. and that are among our tools of investigation of
mathematical and physical objects. It is shown that numeral systems strongly in-
fluence our capabilities to describe both the mathematical and physical worlds. A
new numeral system introduced in [30, 32, 37]) for performing computations with
infinite and infinitesimal quantities is used for the observation of mathematical ob-
jects and studying Turing machines. The new methodology is based on the principle
‘The part is less than the whole’ introduced by Ancient Greeks (see, e.g., Euclid’s
Common Notion 5) and observed in practice. It is applied to all sets and processes
(finite and infinite) and all numbers (finite, infinite, and infinitesimal).
In order to see the place of the new approach in the historical panorama of ideas
dealing with infinite and infinitesimal, see [19, 20, 21, 35, 36, 42, 43]. The new
methodology has been successfully applied for studying a number of applications:
percolation (see [13, 45]), Euclidean and hyperbolic geometry (see [22, 29]), fractals
(see [31, 33, 40, 45]), numerical differentiation and optimization (see [7, 34, 38,
48]), ordinary differential equations (see [41]), infinite series (see [35, 39, 47]), the
first Hilbert problem (see [36]), and cellular automata (see [8]).
The rest of the chapter is structured as follows. In Section 2, Single and Multi-
tape Turing machines are introduced along with “classical” results concerning their
computational power and related equivalences; in Section 3 a brief introduction to
the new language and methodology is given whereas their exploitation for analyzing
and observing the different types of Turing machines is discussed in Section 4. It
shows that the new approach allows us to observe Turing machines with a higher
accuracy giving so the possibility to better characterize and distinguish machines
which are equivalent when observed within the classical framework. Finally, Sec-
tion 5 concludes the chapter.

1 We are reminded that a numeral is a symbol or group of symbols that represents a number. The

difference between numerals and numbers is the same as the difference between words and the
things they refer to. A number is a concept that a numeral expresses. The same number can be
represented by different numerals. For example, the symbols ‘7’, ‘seven’, and ‘VII’ are different
numerals, but they all represent the same number.
A new perspective on Turing machines 3

2 Turing machines

The Turing machine is one of the simple abstract computational devices that can be
used to model computational processes and investigate the limits of computability.
In the following subsections, deterministic Single and Multi-tape Turing machines
are described along with important classical results concerning their computational
power and related equivalences (see Section 2.1 and 2.2 respectively); finally, non-
deterministic Turing machines are introduced (see Section 2.3).

2.1 Single-Tape Turing machines

A Turing machine (see, e.g., [12, 44]) can be defined as a 7-tuple


M = Q, Γ, b̄, Σ, q0 , F, δ , (1)

where Q is a finite and not empty set of states; Γ is a finite set of symbols; b̄ ∈ Γ is
a symbol called blank; Σ ⊆ {Γ − b̄} is the set of input/output symbols; q0 ∈ Q is the
initial state; F ⊆ Q is the set of final states; δ : {Q − F} × Γ 7→ Q × Γ × {R, L, N} is
a partial function called the transition function, where L means left, R means right,
and N means no move .
Specifically, the machine is supplied with: (i) a tape running through it which is
divided into cells each capable of containing a symbol γ ∈ Γ, where Γ is called the
tape alphabet, and b̄ ∈ Γ is the only symbol allowed to occur on the tape infinitely
often; (ii) a head that can read and write symbols on the tape and move the tape left
and right one and only one cell at a time. The behavior of the machine is specified
by its transition function δ and consists of a sequence of computational steps ; in
each step the machine reads the symbol under the head and applies the transition
function that, given the current state of the machine and the symbol it is reading on
the tape, specifies (if it is defined for these inputs): (i) the symbol γ ∈ Γ to write on
the cell of the tape under the head; (ii) the move of the tape (L for one cell left, R for
one cell right, N for no move); (iii) the next state q ∈ Q of the machine.

2.1.1 Classical results for Single-Tape Turing machines

Starting from the definition of Turing machine introduced above, classical results
(see, e.g., [1]) aim at showing that different machines in terms of provided tape and
alphabet have the same computational power, i.e., they are able to execute the same
computations. In particular, two main results are reported below in an informal way.
Given a Turing machine M = {Q, Γ, b̄, Σ, q0 , F, δ}, which is supplied with an infi-
nite tape, it is always possible to define a Turing machine M ′ = {Q′ , Γ′ , b̄, Σ′ , q′0 , F ′ , δ′ }
which is supplied with a semi-infinite tape (e.g., a tape with a left boundary) and is
equivalent to M , i.e., is able to execute all the computations of M .
4 Yaroslav D. Sergeyev and Alfredo Garro

Given a Turing machine M = {Q, Γ, b̄, Σ, q0 , F, δ}, it is always possible to define

a Turing machine M ′ = {Q′ , Γ′ , b̄, Σ′ , q′0 , F ′ , δ′ } with |Σ′ | = 1 and Γ′ = Σ′ ∪ {b̄},
which is equivalent to M , i.e., is able to execute all the computations of M .
It should be mentioned that these results, together with the usual conclusion re-
garding the equivalences of Turing machines, can be interpreted in the following,
less obvious, way: they show that when we observe Turing machines by exploiting
the classical framework we are not able to distinguish, from the computational point
of view, Turing machines which are provided with alphabets having different num-
ber of symbols and/or different kind of tapes (infinite or semi-infinite) (see [42] for
a detailed discussion).

2.2 Multi-tape Turing machines

Let us consider a variant of the Turing machine defined in (1) where a machine
is equipped with multiple tapes that can be simultaneously accessed and updated
through multiple heads (one per tape). These machines can be used for a more direct
and intuitive resolution of different kind of computational problems. As an example,
in checking if a string is palindrome it can be useful to have two tapes on which
represent the input string so that the verification can be efficiently performed by
reading a tape from left to right and the other one from right to left.
Moving towards a more formal definition, a k-tapes, k ≥ 2, Turing machine
(see [12]) can be defined (cf. (1)) as a 7-tuple
D E
M K = Q, Γ, b̄, Σ, q0 , F, δ(k) , (2)
S
where Σ = ki=1 Σi is given by the union of the symbols in the k input/output al-
phabets Σ1 , . . . , Σk ; Γ = Σ ∪ {b̄} where b̄ is a symbol called blank; Q is a finite and
not empty set of states; q0 ∈ Q is the initial state; F ⊆ Q is the set of final states;
δ(k) : {Q − F} × Γ1 × · · · × Γk 7→ Q × Γ1 × · · · × Γk × {R, L, N}k is a partial func-
tion called the transition function, where Γi = Σi ∪ {b̄}, i = 1, . . . , k, L means left, R
means right, and N means no move .
This definition of δ(k) means that the machine executes a transition starting from
an internal state qi and with the k heads (one for each tape) above the characters
ai1 , . . . , aik , i.e., if δ(k) (q1 , ai1 , . . . , aik ) = (q j , a j 1 , . . . , a j k , z j 1 , . . . , z j k ) the machine
goes in the new state q j , write on the k tapes the characters a j 1 , . . . , a j k respec-
tively, and moves each of its k heads left, right or no move, as specified by the
z j l ∈ {R, L, N}, l = 1, . . . , k.
A machine can adopt for each tape a different alphabet, in any case, for each tape,
as for the Single-tape Turing machines, the minimum portion containing characters
distinct from b̄ is usually represented. In general, a typical configuration of a Multi-
tape machine consists of a read-only input tape, several read and write work tapes,
and a write-only output tape, with the input and output tapes accessible only in one
direction. In the case of a k-tapes machine, the instant configuration of the machine,
A new perspective on Turing machines 5

as for the Single-tape case, must describe the internal state, the contents of the tapes
and the positions of the heads of the machine. D E
More formally, for a k-tapes Turing machine M K = Q, Γ, b̄, Σ, q0 , F, δ(k) with
Sk
Σ= i=1 Σi (see 2) a configuration of the machine is given by:

q#α1 ↑ β1 #α2 ↑ β2 # . . . #αk ↑ βk , (3)

where q ∈ Q; αi ∈ Σi Γ∗i ∪ {ε} and βi ∈ Γ∗i Σi ∪ {b̄}. A configuration is final if q ∈ F.

The starting configuration usually requires the input string x on a tape, e.g., the
first tape so that x ∈ Σ∗1 , and only b̄ symbols on all the other tapes. However, it can be
useful to assume that,
S
at the beginning of a computation, these tapes have a starting
symbol Z0 ∈ / Γ = ki=1 Γi . Therefore, in the initial configuration the head on the first
tape will be on the first character of the input string x, whereas the heads on the other
tapes will observe the symbol Z0 , more formally, by re-placing Γi = Σi ∪ {b̄, Z0 } in
all the previous definition, a configuration q#α1 ↑ β1 #α2 ↑ β2 # . . . #αk ↑ βk is an
initial configuration if αi = ε, i = 1, . . . , k, β1 ∈ Σ∗1 , βi = Z0 , i = 2, . . . , k and q = q0 .
The application of the transition function δ(k) at a machine configuration (c.f.
(3)) defines a computational step of a Multi-tape Turing machine . The set of com-
putational steps which bring the machine from the initial configuration into a final
configuration defines the computation executed by the machine. As an example,
the computation of a Multi-tape Turing machine M K which computes the function
fM K (x) can be represented as follows:
→
q0 # ↑ x# ↑ Z0 # . . . # ↑ Z0 M K q# ↑ x# ↑ fM K (x)# ↑ b̄# . . . # ↑ b̄ (4)
→
where q ∈ F and M K indicates the transition among machine configurations.

2.2.1 Classical results for Multi-Tape Turing machines

It is worth noting that, although the k-tapes Turing machine can be used for a more
direct resolution of different kind of computational problems, in the classical frame-
work it has the same computational power of the Single-tape Turing machine. More
formally, given a Multi-tape Turing machine it is always possible to define a Single-
tape Turing machine which is able to fully simulate its behavior and therefore to
completely execute its computations. In particular, the Single-tape Turing machines
adopted for the simulation use a particular kind of the tape which is divided into
tracks (multi-track tape). In this way, if the tape has m tracks, the head is able to
access (for reading and/or writing) all the m characters on the tracks during a sin-
gle operation. If for the m tracks the alphabets Γ1 , . . . Γm are adopted respectively,
the machine alphabet Γ is such that |Γ| = |Γ1 × · · · × Γm | and can be defined by an
injective function from the set Γ1 × · · · × Γm to the set Γ; this function will asso-
ciate the symbol b̄ in Γ to the tuple (b̄, b̄, . . . , b̄) in Γ1 × · · · × Γm . In general, the
6 Yaroslav D. Sergeyev and Alfredo Garro

elements of Γ which correspond to the elements in Γ1 × · · · × Γm can be indicated

by [ai1 , ai2 , . . . , aim ] where ai j ∈ Γ j .
By adopting this notation it is possible to demonstrate that given a k-tapes Turing
machine M K = {Q, Γ, b̄, Σ, q0 , F, δ(k) } it is always possible to define a Single-tape
Turing machine which is able to simulate t computational steps of M K = in O(t 2 )
transitions by using an alphabet with O((2 |Γ|)k ) symbols (see [1]) .
The proof is based on the definition of a machine M ′ = {Q′ , Γ′ , b̄, Σ′ , q′0 , F ′ , δ′ }
with a Single-tape divided into 2k tracks (see [1]); k tracks for storing the characters
in the k tapes of M K and k tracks for signing through the marker ↓ the positions of
the k heads on the k tapes of M k . As an example, this kind of tape can represent the
content of each tapes of M k and the position of each machine heads in its even and
odd tracks respectively. As discussed above, for obtaining a Single-tape machine
able to represent these 2k tracks, it is sufficient to adopt an alphabet with the required
cardinality and define an injective function which associates a 2k-ple characters of
a cell of the multi-track tape to a symbols in this alphabet.
The transition function δ(k) of the k-tapes machine is given by δ(k) (q1 , ai1 , . . . , aik ) =
(q j , a j 1 , . . . , a j k , z j 1 , . . . , z j k ), with z j 1 , . . . , z j k ∈ {R, L, N}; as a consequence the cor-
responding transition function δ′ of the Single-tape machine, for each transition
specified by δ(k) must individuate the current state and the position of the marker
for each track and then write on the tracks the required symbols, move the markers
and go in another internal state. For each computational step of M K , the machine
M ′ must execute a sequence of steps for covering the portion of tapes between the
two most distant markers. As in each computational step a marker can move at most
of one cell and then two markers can move away each other at most of two cells,
after t steps of M K the markers can be at most 2t cells distant, thus if M K executes
t steps, M ′ executes at most: 2 ∑ti=1 i = t 2 + t = O(t 2 ) steps .
Moving to the cost of the simulation in terms of the number of required characters
for the alphabet of the Single-tape machine, we recall that |Γ1 | = |Σ1 | + 1 and that
|Γi | = |Σi | + 2 for 2 ≤ i ≤ k. So by multiplying the cardinalities of these alphabets
we obtain that: |Γ′ | = 2k (|Σ1 | + 1) ∏ki=2 (|Σi | + 2) = O((2max1≤i≤k |Γi |)k ).

2.3 Non-deterministic Turing machines

A non-deterministic Turing machine (see [12]) can be defined (cf. (1)) as a 7-tuple


M N = Q, Γ, b̄, Σ, q0 , F, δN , (5)

where Q is a finite and not empty set of states; Γ is a finite set of symbols; b̄ ∈ Γ is
a symbol called blank; Σ ⊆ {Γ − b̄} is the set of input/output symbols; q0 ∈ Q is the
initial state; F ⊆ Q is the set of final states; δN : {Q−F}×Γ 7→ P (Q×Γ×{R, L, N})
is a partial function called the transition function, where L means left, R means right,
and N means no move .
A new perspective on Turing machines 7

As for a deterministic Turing machine (see (1)), the behavior of M N is specified

by its transition function δN and consists of a sequence of computational steps . In
each step, given the current state of the machine and the symbol it is reading on
the tape, the transition function δN returns (if it is defined for these inputs) a set of
triplets each of which specifies: (i) a symbol γ ∈ Γ to write on the cell of the tape
under the head; (ii) the move of the tape (L for one cell left, R for one cell right, N
for no move); (iii) the next state q ∈ Q of the Machine. Thus, in each computational
step, the machine can non-deterministically execute different computations, one for
each triple returned by the transition function.
An important characteristic of a non-deterministic Turing machine (see, e.g., [1])
is its non-deterministic degree

d = ν(M N ) = max |δN (q, γ)|

q∈Q−F,γ∈Γ

defined as the maximal number of different configurations reachable in a single

computational step starting from a given configuration. The behavior of the machine
can be then represented as a tree whose branches are the computations that the
machine can execute starting from the initial configuration represented by the node
0 and nodes of the tree at the levels 1, 2, etc. represent subsequent configurations of
the machine.
Let us consider an example shown in Fig. 1 where a non-deterministic machine
M N having the non-deterministic degree d = 3 is presented. The depth of the com-
putational tree is equal to k. In this example, it is supposed that the computational
tree of M N is complete (i.e., each node has exactly d children). Then, obviously, the
computational tree of M N has d k = 3k leaf nodes.

2.3.1 Classical results for non-deterministic Turing machines

An important result for the classic theory on Turing machines (see e.g., [1]) is that
for any non-deterministic Turing machine M N there exists an equivalent determinis-
tic Turing machine M D . Moreover, if the depth of the computational tree generated
by M N is equal to k, then for simulating M N , the deterministic machine M D will
execute at most
k
KM D = ∑ jd j = O(kd k )
j=0

computational steps.
Intuitively, for simulating M N , the deterministic Turing machine M D executes
a breadth-first visit of the computational tree of M N . If we consider the example
from Fig. 1 with k = 3, then the computational tree of M N has d k = 27 leaf nodes
and d k = 27 computational paths consisting of k = 3 branches (i.e., computational
steps) . Then, the tree contains d k−1 = 9 computational paths consisting of k − 1 = 2
branches and d k−2 = 3 computational paths consisting of k − 2 = 1 branches . Thus,
for simulating all the possible computations of M N , i.e., for complete visiting the
8 Yaroslav D. Sergeyev and Alfredo Garro

Fig. 1 The computational tree of a non-deterministic Turing machine M N having the non-
deterministic degree d = 3

computational tree of M N and considering all the possible computational paths of

j computational steps for each 0 6 j 6 k, the deterministic Turing machine M D
will execute KM D steps. In particular, if M N reaches a final configuration (e.g., it
accepts a string) in k > 0 steps and if M D could consider only the d k computational
paths which consist of k computational steps, it will executes at most kd k steps for
reaching this configuration.
These results show an exponential growth of the time required for reaching a fi-
nal configuration by the deterministic Turing machine M D with respect to the time
required by the non-deterministic Turing machine M N , assuming that the time re-
quired for both machines for a single step is the same. However, in the classic theory
on Turing machines it is not known if there is a more efficient simulation of M N .
In other words, it is an important and open problem of Computer Science theory to
demonstrate that it is not possible to simulate a non-deterministic Turing machine
by a deterministic Turing machine with a sub-exponential numbers of steps.
A new perspective on Turing machines 9

3 The Grossone Language and Methodology

In this section, we give just a brief introduction to the methodology of the new
approach [30, 32] dwelling only on the issues directly related to the subject of the
chapter. This methodology will be used in Section 4 to study Turing machines and
to obtain some more accurate results with respect to those obtainable by using the
traditional framework [4, 44] .
In order to start, let us remind that numerous trials have been done during
the centuries to evolve existing numeral systems in such a way that numerals
representing infinite and infinitesimal numbers could be included in them (see
[2, 3, 5, 17, 18, 25, 28, 46]). Since new numeral systems appear very rarely, in each
concrete historical period their significance for Mathematics is very often underes-
timated (especially by pure mathematicians). In order to illustrate their importance,
let us remind the Roman numeral system that does not allow one to express zero and
negative numbers. In this system, the expression III-X is an indeterminate form. As
a result, before appearing the positional numeral system and inventing zero math-
ematicians were not able to create theorems involving zero and negative numbers
and to execute computations with them.
There exist numeral systems that are even weaker than the Roman one. They se-
riously limit their users in executing computations. Let us recall a study published
recently in Science (see [11]). It describes a primitive tribe living in Amazonia (Pi-
rahã). These people use a very simple numeral system for counting: one, two, many.
For Pirahã, all quantities larger than two are just ‘many’ and such operations as 2+2
and 2+1 give the same result, i.e., ‘many’. Using their weak numeral system Pirahã
are not able to see, for instance, numbers 3, 4, 5, and 6, to execute arithmetical op-
erations with them, and, in general, to say anything about these numbers because in
their language there are neither words nor concepts for that.
In the context of the present chapter, it is very important that the weakness of
Pirahã’s numeral system leads them to such results as

‘many’ + 1 = ‘many’, ‘many’ + 2 = ‘many’, (6)

which are very familiar to us in the context of views on infinity used in the traditional
calculus
∞ + 1 = ∞, ∞ + 2 = ∞. (7)
The arithmetic of Pirahã involving the numeral ‘many’ has also a clear similarity
with the arithmetic proposed by Cantor for his Alephs2 :

ℵ0 + 1 = ℵ0 , ℵ0 + 2 = ℵ0 , ℵ1 + 1 = ℵ1 , ℵ1 + 2 = ℵ1 . (8)

2 This similarity becomes even more pronounced if one considers another Amazonian tribe –
Mundurukú (see [26]) – who fail in exact arithmetic with numbers larger than 5 but are able to
compare and add large approximate numbers that are far beyond their naming range. Particularly,
they use the words ‘some, not many’ and ‘many, really many’ to distinguish two types of large
numbers using the rules that are very similar to ones used by Cantor to operate with ℵ0 and ℵ1 ,
respectively.
10 Yaroslav D. Sergeyev and Alfredo Garro

Thus, the modern mathematical numeral systems allow us to distinguish a larger

quantity of finite numbers with respect to Pirahã but give results that are similar to
those of Pirahã when we speak about infinite quantities. This observation leads us to
the following idea: Probably our difficulties in working with infinity is not connected
to the nature of infinity itself but is a result of inadequate numeral systems that we
use to work with infinity, more precisely, to express infinite numbers.
The approach developed in [30, 32, 37] proposes a numeral system that uses
the same numerals for several different purposes for dealing with infinities and in-
finitesimals: in Analysis for working with functions that can assume different infi-
nite, finite, and infinitesimal values (functions can also have derivatives assuming
different infinite or infinitesimal values); for measuring infinite sets; for indicating
positions of elements in ordered infinite sequences ; in probability theory, etc. (see
[7, 8, 13, 22, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 45, 47, 48]). It is important to em-
phasize that the new numeral system avoids situations of the type (6)–(8) providing
results ensuring that if a is a numeral written in this system then for any a (i.e., a
can be finite, infinite, or infinitesimal) it follows a + 1 > a.
The new numeral system works as follows. A new infinite unit of measure ex-
pressed by the numeral ① called grossone is introduced as the number of elements
of the set, N, of natural numbers. Concurrently with the introduction of grossone in
the mathematical language all other symbols (like ∞, Cantor’s ω, ℵ0 , ℵ1 , ..., etc.)
traditionally used to deal with infinities and infinitesimals are excluded from the lan-
guage because grossone and other numbers constructed with its help not only can
be used instead of all of them but can be used with a higher accuracy3 . Grossone is
introduced by describing its properties postulated by the Infinite Unit Axiom (see
[32, 37]) added to axioms for real numbers (similarly, in order to pass from the set,
N, of natural numbers to the set, Z, of integers a new element – zero expressed by
the numeral 0 – is introduced by describing its properties) .
The new numeral ① allows us to construct different numerals expressing different
infinite and infinitesimal numbers and to execute computations with them. Let us
give some examples. For instance, in Analysis, indeterminate forms are not present
and, for example, the following relations hold for ① and ①−1 (that is infinitesimal),
as for any other (finite, infinite, or infinitesimal) number expressible in the new
numeral system

①
0 · ① = ① · 0 = 0, ① − ① = 0, = 1, ①0 = 1, 1① = 1, 0① = 0, (9)
①

0 · ①−1 = ①−1 · 0 = 0, ①−1 > 0, ①−2 > 0, ①−1 − ①−1 = 0, (10)

①−1 ①−2
−1
= 1, = 1, (①−1 )0 = 1, ① · ①−1 = 1, ① · ①−2 = ①−1 . (11)
① ①−2
The new approach gives the possibility to develop a new Analysis (see [35])
where functions assuming not only finite values but also infinite and infinitesimal

3 Analogously, when the switch from Roman numerals to the Arabic ones has been done, numerals

X, V, I, etc. have been excluded from records using Arabic numerals.

A new perspective on Turing machines 11

ones can be studied. For all of them it becomes possible to introduce a new notion
of continuity that is closer to our modern physical knowledge. Functions assuming
finite and infinite values can be differentiated and integrated.
By using the new numeral system it becomes possible to measure certain infinite
sets and to see, e.g., that the sets of even and odd numbers have ①/2 elements
each. The set, Z, of integers has 2①+1 elements (① positive elements, ① negative
elements, and zero). Within the countable sets and sets having cardinality of the
continuum (see [20, 36, 37]) it becomes possible to distinguish infinite sets having
different number of elements expressible in the numeral system using grossone and
to see that, for instance,
①
< ① − 1 < ① < ① + 1 < 2① + 1 < 2①2 − 1 < 2①2 < 2①2 + 1 <
2

2①2 + 2 < 2① − 1 < 2① < 2① + 1 < 10① < ①① − 1 < ①① < ①① + 1. (12)
Another key notion for our study of Turing machines is that of infinite sequence.
Thus, before considering the notion of the Turing machine from the point of view
of the new methodology, let us explain how the notion of the infinite sequence can
be viewed from the new positions.

3.1 Infinite sequences

Traditionally, an infinite sequence {an }, an ∈ A, n ∈ N, is defined as a function hav-

ing the set of natural numbers, N, as the domain and a set A as the codomain. A
subsequence {bn } is defined as a sequence {an } from which some of its elements
have been removed . In spite of the fact that the removal of the elements from {an }
can be directly observed, the traditional approach does not allow one to register, in
the case where the obtained subsequence {bn } is infinite, the fact that {bn } has less
elements than the original infinite sequence {an }.
Let us study what happens when the new approach is used. From the point of
view of the new methodology, an infinite sequence can be considered in a dual way:
either as an object of a mathematical study or as a mathematical instrument devel-
oped by human beings to observe other objects and processes. First, let us consider
it as a mathematical object and show that the definition of infinite sequences should
be done more precise within the new methodology. In the finite case, a sequence
a1 , a2 , . . . , an has n elements and we extend this definition directly to the infinite
case saying that an infinite sequence a1 , a2 , . . . , an has n elements where n is ex-
pressed by an infinite numeral such that the operations with it satisfy the Postulate 3
of the Grossone methodology4 . Then the following result (see [30, 32]) holds. We
reproduce here its proof for the sake of completeness.

4 The Postulate 3 states: The part is less than the whole is applied to all numbers (finite, infinite,

and infinitesimal) and to all sets and processes (finite and infinite), see[30].
12 Yaroslav D. Sergeyev and Alfredo Garro

Theorem 1. The number of elements of any infinite sequence is less or equal to ①.

Proof. The new numeral system allows us to express the number of elements
of the set N as ①. Thus, due to the sequence definition given above, any sequence
having N as the domain has ① elements.
The notion of subsequence is introduced as a sequence from which some of its
elements have been removed. This means that the resulting subsequence will have
less elements than the original sequence. Thus, we obtain infinite sequences having
the number of members less than grossone. 2
It becomes appropriate now to define the complete sequence as an infinite se-
quence containing ① elements . For example, the sequence of natural numbers is
complete, the sequences of even and odd natural numbers are not complete because
they have ① 2 elements each (see [30, 32]). Thus, the new approach imposes a more
precise description of infinite sequences than the traditional one: to define a se-
quence {an } in the new language, it is not sufficient just to give a formula for an , we
should determine (as it happens for sequences having a finite number of elements)
its number of elements and/or the first and the last elements of the sequence. If the
number of the first element is equal to one, we can use the record {an : k} where an
is, as usual, the general element of the sequence and k is the number (that can be
finite or infinite) of members of the sequence; the following example clarifies these
concepts.

Example 1. Let us consider the following three sequences:

{an : ①} = {4, 8, . . . 4(① − 1), 4①}; (13)

① ① ①
{bn : − 1} = {4, 8, . . . 4( − 2), 4( − 1)}; (14)
2 2 2
2① 2① 2①
{cn : } = {4, 8, . . . 4( − 1), 4 }. (15)
3 3 3
The three sequences have an = bn = cn = 4n but they are different because they
have different number of members. Sequence {an } has ① elements and, therefore,
is complete, {bn } has ① ①
2 − 1, and {cn } has 2 3 elements. 2

Let us consider now infinite sequences as one of the instruments used by math-
ematicians to study the world around us and other mathematical objects and pro-
cesses. The first immediate consequence of Theorem 1 is that any sequential pro-
cess can have at maximum ① elements. This means that a process of sequential
observations of any object cannot contain more than ① steps5 . We are not able to

5 It is worthy to notice a deep relation of this observation to the Axiom of Choice. Since Theorem 1

states that any sequence can have at maximum ① elements, so this fact holds for the process of a
sequential choice, as well. As a consequence, it is not possible to choose sequentially more than
① elements from a set. This observation also emphasizes the fact that the parallel computational
paradigm is significantly different with respect to the sequential one because p parallel processes
can choose p · ① elements from a set.
A new perspective on Turing machines 13

execute any infinite process physically but we assume the existence of such a pro-
cess; moreover, only a finite number of observations of elements of the considered
infinite sequence can be executed by a human who is limited by the numeral system
used for the observation. Indeed, we can observe only those members of a sequence
for which there exist the corresponding numerals in the chosen numeral system; to
better clarify this point the following example is discussed.
Example 2. Let us consider the numeral system, P , of Pirahã able to express only
numbers 1 and 2. If we add to P the new numeral ①, we obtain a new numeral
system (we call it Pb ). Let us consider now a sequence of natural numbers {n : ①}.
It goes from 1 to ① (note that both numbers, 1 and ①, can be expressed by numerals
from Pb ). However, the numeral system Pb is very weak and it allows us to observe
only ten numbers from the sequence {n : ①} represented by the following numerals
① ① ① ① ①
1, 2 , ... − 2, − 1, , + 1, + 2, ... ① − 2, ① − 1, ① . (16)
|{z} |2 2 2 2
{z 2 } | {z }
f inite in f inite
in f inite

The first two numerals in (16) represent finite numbers, the remaining eight numer-
als express infinite numbers, and dots represent members of the sequence of natural
numbers that are not expressible in Pb and, therefore, cannot be observed if one uses
only this numeral system for this purpose. 2
In the light of the limitations concerning the process of sequential observations,
the researcher can choose how to organize the required sequence of observations
and which numeral system to use for it, defining so which elements of the object
he/she can observe. This situation is exactly the same as in natural sciences: before
starting to study a physical object, a scientist chooses an instrument and its accuracy
for the study.
Example 3. Let us consider the set A={1, 2, 3, . . . , 2①-1,2①} as an object of our
observation. Suppose that we want to organize the process of the sequential counting
of its elements. Then, due to Theorem 1, starting from the number 1 this process can
arrive at maximum to ①. If we consider the complete counting sequence {n : ①},
then we obtain
1, 2, 3, 4, . . . ①− 2, ①− 1, ①, ①+ 1, ①+ 2, ①+ 3, . . . , 2①− 1, 2①
x xxx x xx
| {z } (17)
① steps

Analogously, if we start the process of the sequential counting from 5, the process
arrives at maximum to ① + 4:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 . . . ①− 1, ①, ①+ 1, ①+ 2, ①+ 3, ①+ 4, ①+ 5, . . . , 2①− 1, 2①
x x xx x x x
| {z } (18)
① steps
14 Yaroslav D. Sergeyev and Alfredo Garro

The corresponding complete sequence used in this case is {n + 4 : ①}. We can also
change the length of the step in the counting sequence and consider, for instance,
the complete sequence {2n − 1 : ①}:

1, 2, 3, 4, . . . ①− 1, ①, ①+ 1, ①+ 2, . . . 2①− 3, 2①− 2, 2①− 1, 2①

xx x xx xx
| {z } (19)
① steps

If we use again the numeral system Pb , then among finite numbers it allows us to see
only number 1 because already the next number in the sequence, 3, is not expressible
in Pb . The last element of the sequence is 2① − 1 and Pb allows us to observe it. 2

The introduced definition of the sequence allows us to work not only with the
first but with any element of any sequence if the element of our interest is express-
ible in the chosen numeral system independently whether the sequence under our
study has a finite or an infinite number of elements. Let us use this new definition
for studying infinite sets of numerals, in particular, for calculating the number of
points at the interval [0, 1) (see [30, 32]). To do this we need a definition of the term
‘point’ and mathematical tools to indicate a point. If we accept (as is usually done
in modern Mathematics) that a point A belonging to the interval [0, 1) is determined
by a numeral x, x ∈ S, called coordinate of the point A where S is a set of numerals,
then we can indicate the point A by its coordinate x and we are able to execute the
required calculations.
It is worthwhile to emphasize that giving this definition we have not used the
usual formulation “x belongs to the set, R, of real numbers”. This has been done be-
cause we can express coordinates only by numerals and different choices of numeral
systems lead to different sets of numerals and, as a result, to different sets of num-
bers observable through the chosen numerals. In fact, we can express coordinates
only after we have fixed a numeral system (our instrument of the observation) and
this choice defines which points we can observe, namely, points having coordinates
expressible by the chosen numerals. This situation is typical for natural sciences
where it is well known that instruments influence the results of observations. Re-
mind the work with a microscope: we decide the level of the precision we need and
obtain a result which is dependent on the chosen level of accuracy. If we need a
more precise or a more rough answer, we change the lens of our microscope.
We should decide now which numerals we shall use to express coordinates of
the points. After this choice we can calculate the number of numerals expressible
in the chosen numeral system and, as a result, we obtain the number of points at
the interval [0, 1). Different variants (see [30, 32]) can be chosen depending on the
precision level we want to obtain. For instance, we can choose a positional numeral
system with a finite radix b that allows us to work with numerals

(0.a1 a2 . . . a(①−1) a① )b , ai ∈ {0, 1, . . . b − 2, b − 1}, 1 ≤ i ≤ ①. (20)

A new perspective on Turing machines 15

Then, the number of numerals (20) gives us the number of points within the inter-
val [0, 1) that can be expressed by these numerals. Note that a number using the
positional numeral system (20) cannot have more than grossone digits (contrarily
to sets discussed in Example 3) because a numeral having g > ① digits would not
be observable in a sequence. In this case (g > ①) such a record becomes useless in
sequential computations because it does not allow one to identify numbers entirely
since g − ① numerals remain non observed.

Theorem 2. If coordinates of points x ∈ [0, 1) are expressed by numerals (20), then

the number of the points x over [0, 1) is equal to b① .

Proof. In the numerals (20) there is a sequence of digits, a1 a2 . . . a(①−1) a① , used to

express the fractional part of the number. Due to the definition of the sequence and
Theorem 1, any infinite sequence can have at maximum ① elements. As a result,
there is ① positions on the right of the dot that can be filled in by one of the b digits
from the alphabet {0, 1, . . . , b − 1} that leads to b① possible combinations. Hence,
the positional numeral system using the numerals of the form (20) can express b①
numbers. 2
Corollary 1. The number of numerals

(a1 a2 a3 . . . a①−2 a①−1 a① )b , ai ∈ {0, 1, . . . b − 2, b − 1}, 1 ≤ i ≤ ①, (21)

expressing integers in the positional system with a finite radix b in the alphabet
{0, 1, . . . b − 2, b − 1} is equal to b① .
Proof. The proof is a straightforward consequence of Theorem 2 and is so omit-
ted. 2

Corollary 2. If coordinates of points x ∈ (0, 1) are expressed by numerals (20), then

the number of the points x over (0, 1) is equal to b① − 1.

Proof. The proof follows immediately from Theorem 2. 2

Note that Corollary 2 shows that it becomes possible now to observe and to reg-
ister the difference of the number of elements of two infinite sets (the interval [0, 1)
and the interval (0, 1), respectively) even when only one element (the point 0, ex-
pressed by the numeral 0.00 . . . 0 with ① zero digits after the decimal point) has been
excluded from the first set in order to obtain the second one.

4 Observing Turing machines through the lens of the Grossone

Methodology

In this Section the different types of Turing machines introduced in Section 2 are
analyzed and observed by using as instruments of observation the Grossone lan-
guage and methodology presented in Section 3 . In particular, after introducing a
16 Yaroslav D. Sergeyev and Alfredo Garro

distiction between physical and ideal Turing machine (see Section 4.1), some re-
sults for Single-tape and Multi-tape Turing machines are summarized (see Sections
4.2 and 4.3 respectively), then a discussion about the equivalence between Single
and Multi-tape Turing machine is reported in Section 4.4. Finally, a comparison be-
tween deterministic and non-deterministic Turing machines through the lens of the
Grossone methodology is presented in Section 4.5.

4.1 Physical and Ideal Turing machines

Before starting observing Turing machines by using the Grossone methodology, it

is useful to recall the main results showed in the previous Section: (i) a (complete)
sequence can have maximum ① elements; (ii) the elements which we are able to
observe in this sequence depend on the adopted numeral system. Moreover, a distic-
tion between physical and ideal Turing machines should be introduced. Specifically,
the machines defined in Section 2 (e.g. the Single-Tape Turing machine of Section
2.1) are called ideal Turing machine, T I . Howerver, in order to study the limita-
tions of practical automatic computations, we also consider machines, T P , that can
be constructed physically. They are identical to T I but are able to work only a finite
time and can produce only finite outputs. In this Section, both kinds of machines
are analyzed from the point of view of their outputs, called by Turing ‘computable
numbers’ or ‘computable,sequences’, and from the point of view of computations
that the machines can execute .

Let us consider first a physical machine T P and discuss about the number of
computational steps it can execute and how the obtained results then can be inter-
preted by a human observer (e.g. the researcher) . We suppose that its output is
written on the tape using an alphabet Σ containing b symbols {0, 1, . . . b − 2, b − 1}
where b is a finite number (Turing uses b = 10).Thus, the output consists of a se-
quence of digits that can be viewed as a number in a positional system B with the
radix b. By definition, T P should stop after a finite number of iterations. The mag-
nitude of this value depends on the physical construction of the machine, the way
the notion ‘iteration’ has been defined, etc., but in any case this number is finite.
A physical machine T P stops in two cases: (i) it has finished the execution of its
program and stops; (ii) it stops because its breakage. In both cases the output se-
quence

(a1 a2 a3 . . . ak−1 , ak )b , ai ∈ {0, 1, . . . b − 2, b − 1}, 1 ≤ i ≤ k,

of T P has a finite length k.

If the maximal length of the output sequence that can be computed by T P is
equal to a finite number KT P , then it follows k ≤ KT P . This means that there exist
problems that cannot be solved by T P if the length of the output outnumbers KT P .
If a physical machine T P has stopped after it has printed KT P symbols, then it is
A new perspective on Turing machines 17

not clear whether the obtained output is a solution or just a result of the depletion of
its computational resources.
In particular, with respect to the halting problem it follows that all algorithms stop
on T P .

In order to be able to read and to understand the output, the researcher (the user)
should know a positional numeral system U with an alphabet {0, 1, . . . u − 2, u − 1}
where u ≥ b. Otherwise, the output cannot be decoded by the user. Moreover, the
researcher must be able to observe a number of symbols at least equal to the maximal
length of the output sequence that can be computed by machine (i.e., KU ≥ KT P ).
If the situation KU < KT P holds, then this means that the user is not able to inter-
pret the obtained result. Thus, the number K ∗ = min{KU , KT P } defines the length
of the outputs that can be computed and interpreted by the user.
As a consequence, algorithms producing outputs having more than K ∗ positions be-
come less interesting from the practical point of view.

After having introduced the distinction between physical and ideal Turing ma-
chines, let us analyze and observe them through the lens of the Grossone Method-
ology. Specifically, the results obtained and discussed in [42] for deterministic and
non-deterministic Single-tape Turing machines are summarized in Section 4.2 and
4.4 respectively; whereas, Section 4.3 reports additional results for Multi-tape Tur-
ing machines (see [43]).

4.2 Observing Single-Tape Turing machines

As stated in Section 4.1, single-tape ideal Turing machines M I (see Section 2.1)
can produce outputs with an infinite number of symbols k. However, in order to be
observable in a sequence, an output should have k ≤ ① (see Section 3). Starting
from these considerations the following theorem can be introduced.

Theorem 3. Let M be the number of all possible complete computable sequences

that can be produced by ideal single-tape Turing machines using outputs being nu-
merals in the positional numeral system B . Then it follows M ≤ b① .

Proof. This result follows from the definitions of the complete sequence and the
form of numerals

(a−1 a−2 . . . a−(①−1) a−① )b , a−i ∈ {0, 1, . . . b − 2, b − 1}, 1 ≤ i ≤ ①,

that are used in the positional numeral system B . 2

Corollary 3. Let us consider an ideal Turing machine M 1I working with the alpha-
bet {0, 1, 2} and computing the following complete computable sequence
18 Yaroslav D. Sergeyev and Alfredo Garro

0, 1, 2, 0, 1, 2, 0, 1, 2, . . . 0, 1, 2, 0, 1, 2 . (22)
| {z }
① positions

Then ideal Turing machines working with the output alphabet {0, 1} cannot produce
observable in a sequence outputs computing (22).

Since the numeral 2 does not belong to the alphabet {0, 1} it should be coded by
more than one symbol. One of codifications using the minimal number of symbols
in the alphabet {0, 1} necessary to code numbers 0, 1, 2 is {00, 01, 10}. Then the
output corresponding to (22) and computed in this codification should be

00, 01, 10, 00, 01, 10, 00, 01, 10, . . . 00, 01, 10, 00, 01, 10. (23)

Since the output (22) contains grossone positions, the output (23) should contain
2① positions. However, in order to be observable in a sequence, (23) should not
have more than grossone positions. This fact completes the proof. 2
The mathematical language used by Turing did not allow one to distinguish these
two machines. Now we are able to distinguish a machine from another also when
we consider infinite sequences. Turing’s results and the new ones do not contradict
each other. Both languages observe and describe the same object (computable se-
quences) but with different accuracies.

It is not possible to describe a Turing machine (the object of the study) without
the usage of a numeral system (the instrument of the study). As a result, it becomes
not possible to speak about an absolute number of all possible Turing machines T I .
It is always necessary to speak about the number of all possible Turing machines
T I expressible in a fixed numeral system (or in a group of them).
Theorem 4. The maximal number of complete computable sequences produced by
ideal Turing machines that can be enumerated in a sequence is equal to ①.

We have established that the number of complete computable sequences that can
be computed using a fixed radix b is less or equal b① . However, we do not know
how many of them can be results of computations of a Turing machine. Turing es-
tablishes that their number is enumerable. In order to obtain this result, he used the
mathematical language developed by Cantor and this language did not allow him
to distinguish sets having different infinite numbers of elements. The introduction
of grossone gives a possibility to execute a more precise analysis and to distinguish
within enumerable sets infinite sets having different numbers of elements. For in-
stance, the set of even numbers has ① 2 elements and the set of integer numbers has
2① + 1 elements. If the number of complete computable sequences, MT I , is larger
than ①, then there can be differen sequential processes that enumerate different se-
quences of complete computable sequences. In any case, each of these enumerating
sequential processes cannot contain more than grossone members.
A new perspective on Turing machines 19

4.3 Observing Multi-tape Turing machines

Before starting to analyze theDcomputations performed E by an ideal k-tapes Turing

machine (with k ≥ 2) M K = Q, Γ, b̄, Σ, q0 , F, δ
I (k) (see (1), see Section 2.2), it is
worth to make some considerations about the process of observation itself in the
light of the Grossone methodology. As discussed above, if we want to observe the
process of computation performed by a Turing machine while it executes an al-
gorithm, then we have to execute observations of the machine in a sequence of
moments. In fact, it is not possible to organize a continuous observation of the ma-
chine. Any instrument used for an observation has its accuracy and there always be
a minimal period of time related to this instrument allowing one to distinguish two
different moments of time and, as a consequence, to observe (and to register) the
states of the object in these two moments. In the period of time passing between
these two moments the object remains unobservable.
Since our observations are made in a sequence, the process of observations can
have at maximum ① elements. This means that inside a computational process it is
possible to fix more than grossone steps (defined in a way) but it is not possible to
count them one by one in a sequence containing more than grossone elements. For
instance, in a time interval [0, 1), up to b① numerals of the type (20) can be used
to identify moments of time but not more than grossone of them can be observed
in a sequence. Moreover, it is important to stress that any process itself, considered
independently on the researcher, is not subdivided in iterations, intermediate results,
moments of observations, etc. The structure of the language we use to describe
the process imposes what we can say about the process (see [42] for a detailed
discussion).
On the basis of the considerations made above, we should choose the accuracy
(granularity) of the process of the observation of a Turing machine; for instance we
can choose a single operation of the machine such as reading a symbol from the
tape, or moving the tape, etc. However, in order to be close as much as possible to
the traditional results, we consider an application of the transition function of the
machine as our observation granularity (see Section 2).
Moreover, concerning the output of the machine, we consider the symbols written
on all the k tapes of the machine by using, on each tape i, with 1 ≤ i ≤ k, the
alphabet Σi of the tape, containing bi symbols, plus the blank symbol (b̄). Due to
the definition of complete sequence (see Section 3) on each tape at least ① symbols
can be produced and observed. This means that on a tape i, after the last symbols
belonging to the tape alphabet Σi , if the sequence is not complete (i.e., if it has
less than ① symbols) we can consider a number of blank symbols (b̄) necessary
to complete the sequence. We say that we are considering a complete output of a
k-tapes Turing machine when on each tape of the machine we consider a complete
sequence of symbols belonging to Σi ∪ {b̄}.
D E
Theorem 5. Let M KI = Q, Γ, b̄, Σ, q0 , F, δ(k) be an ideal k-tapes, k ≥ 2, Turing
machine. Then, a complete output of the machine will results in k① symbols.
20 Yaroslav D. Sergeyev and Alfredo Garro

Proof. Due to the definition of the complete sequence, on each tape at maximum
① symbols can be produced and observed and thus by considering a complete se-
quence on each of the k tapes of the machine the complete output of the machine
will result in k① symbols. 2
Having proved that a complete output that can be produced by a k-tapes Turing
machine results in k① symbols, it is interesting to investigate what part of the com-
plete output produced by the machine can be observed in a sequence taking into
account that it is not possible to observe in a sequence more than ① symbols (see
Section 3). As examples, we can decide to make in a sequence one of the following
observations: (i) ① symbols on one among the k-tapes of the machine, (ii) ① k sym-
bols on each of the k-tapes of the machine; (iii) ① symbols on 2 among the k-tapes
2
of the machine, an so on.
D E
Theorem 6. Let M KI = Q, Γ, b̄, Σ, q0 , F, δ(k) be an ideal k-tapes, k ≥ 2, Turing
machine. Let M be the number of all possible complete outputs that can be produced
by M KI . Then it follows M = ∏ki=1 (bi + 1)① .

Proof. Due to the definition of the complete sequence, on each tape i, with 1 ≤ i ≤
k, at maximum ① symbols can be produced and observed by using the bi symbols
of the alphabet Σi of the tape plus the blank symbol (b̄); as a consequence, the
number of all the possible complete sequences that can be produced and observed
on a tape i is (bi + 1)① . A complete output of the machine is obtained by considering
a complete sequence on each of the the k-tapes of the machine, thus by considering
all the possible complete sequences that can be produced and observed on each of
the k tapes of the machine, the number M of all the possible complete outputs will
results in ∏ki=1 (bi + 1)① . 2
As the number M = ∏ki=1 (bi + 1)① of complete outputs that can be produced
by M K is larger than grossone, then there can be different sequential enumerating
processes that enumerate complete outputs in different ways, in any case, each of
these enumerating sequential processes cannot contain more than grossone members
(see Section 3).

4.4 Comparing different Multi-tape machines and Multi and

Single-tape machines

In the classical framework ideal k-tape Turing machines have the same computa-
tional power of Single-tape Turing machines and given a Multi-tape Turing ma-
chine M KI it is always possible to define a Single-tape Turing machine which is able
to fully simulate its behavior and therefore to completely execute its computations.
As showed for Single-tape Turing machine (see [42]), the Grossone methodology
allows us to give a more accurate definition of the equivalence among different ma-
chines as it provides the possibility not only to separate different classes of infinite
sets with respect to their cardinalities but also to measure the number of elements
A new perspective on Turing machines 21

of some of them. With reference to Multi-tape Turing machines, the Single-tape

Turing machines adopted for their simulation use a particular kind of tape which is
divided into tracks (multi-track tape). In this way, if the tape has m tracks, the head
is able to access (for reading and/or writing) all the m characters on the tracks dur-
ing a single operation. This tape organization leads to a straightforward definition of
the behavior of a Single-tape Turing machine able to completely execute the com-
putations of a given Multi-tape Turing machine (see Section 2.2). However, the so
defined Single-tape Turing machine M I , to simulate t computational steps of M KI ,
needs to execute O(t 2 ) transitions (t 2 + t in the worst case) and to use an alphabet
with 2k (|Σ1 | + 1) ∏ki=2 (|Σi | + 2) symbols (again see Section 2.2). By exploiting the
Grossone methodology is is possibile to obtain the following result that has a higher
accuracy with respect to that provided by the traditional framework.
D E
Theorem 7. Let us consider M KI = Q, Γ, b̄, Σ, q0 , F, δ(k) ,a k-tapes, k ≥ 2, Turing
S
machine, where Σ = ki=1 Σi is given by the union of the symbols in the k tape al-
phabets Σ1 , . . . , Σk and Γ = Σ ∪ {b̄}. If this machine performs t computational steps
such that
1 √
t 6 ( 4① + 1 − 1), (24)
2
then there exists M 1I = {Q′ , Γ′ , b̄, Σ′ , q′0 , F ′ , δ′ }, an equivalent Single-tape Turing
machine with |Γ′ | = 2k (|Σ1 | + 1) ∏ki=2 (|Σi | + 2), which is able to simulate M KI and
can be observed in a sequence.

Proof. Let us recall that the definition of M 1I requires for a Single-tape to be

divided into 2k tracks; k tracks for storing the characters in the k tapes of M KI and
k tracks for signing through the marker ↓ the positions of the k heads on the k
tapes of M kI (see Section 2.2). The transition function δ(k) of the k-tapes machine
is given by δ(k) (q1 , ai1 , . . . , aik ) = (q j , a j 1 , . . . , a j k , z j 1 , . . . , z j k ), with z j 1 , . . . , z j k ∈
{R, L, N}; as a consequence the corresponding transition function δ′ of the Single-
tape machine, for each transition specified by δ(k) must individuate the current state
and the position of the marker for each track and then write on the tracks the required
symbols, move the markers and go in another internal state. For each computational
step of M KI , M 1I must execute a sequence of steps for covering the portion of tapes
between the two most distant markers. As in each computational step a marker can
move at most of one cell and then two markers can move away each other at most
of two cells, after t steps of M KI the markers can be at most 2t cells distant, thus
if M KI executes t steps, M 1I executes at most: 2 ∑ti=1 i = t 2 + t steps. In order to be
observable in a sequence the number t 2 + t of steps, performed by M 1I to simulate t
steps of M KI , must be less than or equal to ①. √Namely, it should be t + t 6①. The
2
1
fact that this inequality is satisfied for t 6 2 ( 4① + 1 − 1) completes the proof. 2
22 Yaroslav D. Sergeyev and Alfredo Garro

4.5 Comparing deterministic and non-deterministic Turing

machines

Let us discuss the traditional and new results regarding the computational power of
deterministic and non-deterministic Turing machines.
Classical results show an exponential growth of the time required for reaching
a final configuration by the deterministic Turing machine M D with respect to the
time required by the non-deterministic Turing machine M N , assuming that the time
required for both machines for a single step is the same. However, in the classic
theory on Turing machines it is not known if there is a more efficient simulation of
M N . In other words, it is an important and open problem of Computer Science theory
to demonstrate that it is not possible to simulate a non-deterministic Turing machine
by a deterministic Turing machine with a sub-exponential numbers of steps.
Let us now return to the new mathematical language. Since the main interest to
non-deterministic Turing machines (5) is related to their theoretical properties, here-
inafter we start by a comparison of ideal deterministic Turing machines, T I , with
ideal non-deterministic Turing machines T I N . Physical machines T P and T P N are
considered at the end of this section. By taking into account the results of Section
4.4, the proposed approach can be applied both to single and multi-tape machines,
however, single-tape machines are considered in the following.
Due to the analysis made in Section 4.3, we should choose the accuracy (gran-
ularity) of processes of observation of both machines, T I and T I N . In order to be
close as much as possible to the traditional results, we consider again an applica-
tion of the transition function of the machine as our observation granularity. With
respect to T I N this means that the nodes of the computational tree are observed.
With respect to T I we consider sequences of such nodes. For both cases the ini-
tial configuration is not observed, i.e., we start our observations from level 1 of the
computational tree.
This choice of the observation granularity is particularly attractive due to its ac-
cordance with the traditional definitions of Turing machines (see definitions (1) and
(5)). A more fine granularity of observations allowing us to follow internal oper-
ations of the machines can be also chosen but is not so convenient. In fact, such
an accuracy would mix internal operations of the machines with operations of the
algorithm that is executed. A coarser granularity could be considered, as well. For
instance, we could define as a computational step two consecutive applications of
the transition function of the machine. However, in this case we do not observe all
the nodes of the computational tree. As a consequence, we could miss some results
of the computation as the machine could reach a final configuration before complet-
ing an observed computational step and we are not able to observe when and on
which configuration the machine stopped. Then, fixed the chosen level of granular-
ity the following result holds immediately.

Theorem 8. (i) With the chosen level of granularity no more than ① computational
steps of the machine T I can be observed in a sequence. (ii) In order to give possi-
bility to observe at least one computational path of the computational tree of T I N
A new perspective on Turing machines 23

Fig. 2 The maximum number of computational steps of the machine T I that can be observed in a
sequence

from the level 1 to the level k, the depth, k ≥ 1, of the computational tree cannot be
larger than grossone, i.e., k ≤ ①.
Proof. Both results follow from the analysis made in Section 3.1 and Theorem 1.
2
In Figure 2 the first result of Theorem 8 concerning the maximum number of
computational steps of the machine T I that can be observed in a sequence is ex-
emplified with reference to the computational tree of the machine introduced in
Section 2.3.
Similarly, the second result of Theorem 8 concerning the depth of the computational
tree of T I N is exemplified in Figure 3.
Corollary 4. Suppose that d is the non-deterministic degree of T I N and S is the
number of leaf nodes of the computational tree with a depth k representing the pos-
sible results of the computation of T I N . Then it is not possible to observe all S
possible results of the computation of T I N if the computational tree of T I N is
complete and d k >①.
Proof. For the number of leaf nodes of the tree, S, of a generic non-deterministic
Turing machine T I N the estimate S ≤ d k holds. In particular, S = d k if the computa-
tional tree is complete, that is our case. On the other hand, it follows from Theorem 1
24 Yaroslav D. Sergeyev and Alfredo Garro

Fig. 3 An observable computational path of the machine T I

that any sequence of observations cannot have more than grossone elements. As a
consequence, the same limitation holds for the sequence of observations of the leaf
nodes of the computational tree. This means that we are not able to observe all the
possible results of the computation of our non-deterministic Turing machine T I N
if d k >①. 2
In Figure 4 the result of Corollary 4 concerning the maximum number of compu-
tational results of the machine T I that can be observed in a sequence is exemplified
with reference to the computational tree of the machine introduced in Section 2.3 .

Corollary 5. Any sequence of observations of the nodes of the computational tree

of a non-deterministic Turing machine T I N cannot observe all the nodes of the tree
if the number of nodes N is such that N >①.

Proof. The corollary follows from Theorems 1, 8, and Corollary 4. 2

These results lead to the following theorem again under the same assumption
about the chosen level of granularity of observations, i.e., the nodes of the compu-
tational tree of T I N representing configurations of the machine are observed.

Theorem 9. Given a non-deterministic Turing machine T I N with a depth, k, of the

computational tree and with a non-deterministic degree d such that
A new perspective on Turing machines 25

Fig. 4 Observable results of of the machine T I

d(kd k+1 − (k + 1)d k + 1)

6 ①, (25)
(d − 1)2

then there exists an equivalent deterministic Turing machine T I which is able to

simulate T I N and can be observed.
Proof. For simulating T I N , the deterministic machine T I executes a breadth-
first visit of the computational tree of T I N . In this computational tree, whose depth
is 1 6 k 6①, each node has, by definition, a number of children c where 0 6 c 6 d.
Let us suppose that the tree is complete, i.e., each node has c = d children. In this
case the tree has d k leaf nodes and d j computational paths of length j for each
1 6 j 6 k. Thus, for simulating all the possible computations of T I N , i.e., for a
complete visiting the computational tree of T I N and considering all the possible
computational paths consisting of j computational steps for each 1 6 j 6 k, the
deterministic machine T I will execute
k
KT I = ∑ jd j (26)
j=1

steps (note that if the computational tree of T I N is not complete, T I will execute
less than KT I ). Due to Theorems 1 and 8, and Corollary 5, it follows that in order
26 Yaroslav D. Sergeyev and Alfredo Garro

to prove the theorem it is sufficient to show that under conditions of the theorem it
follows that
KT I 6 ①. (27)
To do this let us use the well known formula
k
d k+1 − 1
∑ dj = d −1
, (28)
j=0

and derive both parts of (28) with respect to d. As the result we obtain
k
kd k+1 − (k + 1)d k + 1
∑ jd j−1 = (d − 1)2
. (29)
j=1

Notice now that by using (26) it becomes possible to represent the number KT I as
k k
KT I = ∑ jd j = d ∑ jd j−1 .
j=1 j=1

This representation together with (29) allow us to write

d(kd k+1 − (k + 1)d k + 1)

KT I = (30)
(d − 1)2

Due to assumption (25), it follows that (27) holds. This fact concludes the proof of
the theorem. 2

Corollary 6. Suppose that the length of the input sequence of symbols of a non-
deterministic Turing machine T I N is equal to a number n and T I N has a complete
computational tree with the depth k such that k = nl , i.e., polynomially depends on
the length n. Then, if the values d, n, and l satisfy the following condition
l l
d(nl d n +1 − (nl + 1)d n + 1)
6 ①, (31)
(d − 1)2

then: (i) there exists a deterministic Turing machine T I that can be observed and
able to simulate T I N ; (ii) the number, KT I , of computational steps required to a
deterministic Turing machine T I to simulate T I N for reaching a final configuration
exponentially depends on n.

Proof. The first assertion follows immediately from theorem 9. Let us prove the
second assertion. Since the computational tree of T I N is complete and has the depth
k, the corresponding deterministic Turing machine T I for simulating T I N will ex-
ecute KT I steps where KT I is from (27). Since condition (31) is satisfied for T I N ,
we can substitute k = nl in (30). As the result of this substitution and (31) we obtain
that
A new perspective on Turing machines 27
l l
d(nl d n +1 − (nl + 1)d n + 1)
KT I = 6 ①, (32)
(d − 1)2
i.e., the number of computational steps required to the deterministic Turing machine
T I to simulate the non-deterministic Turing machine T I N for reaching a final con-
figuration is KT I 6 ① and this number exponentially depends on the length of the
sequence of symbols provided as input to T I N . 2
Results described in this section show that the introduction of the new mathemat-
ical language including grossone allows us to perform a more subtle analysis with
respect to traditional languages and to introduce in the process of this analysis the
figure of the researcher using this language (more precisely, to emphasize the pres-
ence of the researcher in the process of the description of automatic computations).
These results show that there exist limitations for simulating non-deterministic Tur-
ing machines by deterministic ones. These limitations can be viewed now thanks to
the possibility (given because of the introduction of the new numeral ①) to observe
final points of sequential processes for both cases of finite and infinite processes.
Theorems 8, 9, and their corollaries show that the discovered limitations and
relations between deterministic and non-deterministic Turing machines have strong
links with our mathematical abilities to describe automatic computations and to con-
struct models for such descriptions. Again, as it was in the previous cases studied
in this chapter, there is no contradiction with the traditional results because both
approaches give results that are correct with respect to the languages used for the
respective descriptions of automatic computations.
We conclude this section by the note that analogous results can be obtained for
physical machines T P and T P N , as well. In the case of ideal machines, the pos-
sibility of observations was limited by the mathematical languages. In the case of
physical machines they are limited also by technical factors (we remind again the
analogy: the possibilities of observations of physicists are limited by their instru-
ments). In any given moment of time the maximal number of iterations, Kmax , that
can be executed by physical Turing machines can be determined. It depends on the
speed of the fastest machine T P available at the current level of development of
the humanity, on the capacity of its memory, on the time available for simulating
a non-deterministic machine, on the numeral systems known to human beings, etc.
Together with the development of technology this number will increase but it will
remain finite and fixed in any given moment of time. As a result, theorems presented
in this section can be re-written for T P and T P N by substituting grossone with Kmax
in them.

5 Concluding Remarks

Since the beginning of the last century, the fundamental nature of the concept of
automatic computations attracted a great attention of mathematicians and computer
scientists (see [4, 14, 15, 16, 23, 24, 27, 44]). The first studies had as their ref-
28 Yaroslav D. Sergeyev and Alfredo Garro

erence context the David Hilbert programme, and as their reference language that
introduced by Georg Cantor [3]. These approaches lead to different mathematical
models of computing machines (see [1, 6, 9]) that, surprisingly, were discovered
to be equivalent (e.g., anything computable in the λ-calculus is computable by a
Turing machine). Moreover, these results, and expecially those obtained by Alonzo
Church, Alan Turing [4, 10, 44] and Kurt Gödel, gave fundamental contributions to
demonstrate that David Hilbert programme, which was based on the idea that all of
the Mathematics could be precisely axiomatized, cannot be realized.
In spite of this fact, the idea of finding an adequate set of axioms for one or
another field of Mathematics continues to be among the most attractive goals for
contemporary mathematicians. Usually, when it is necessary to define a concept or
an object, logicians try to introduce a number of axioms describing the object in
the absolutely best way. However, it is not clear how to reach this absoluteness;
indeed, when we describe a mathematical object or a concept we are limited by
the expressive capacity of the language we use to make this description. A richer
language allows us to say more about the object and a weaker language – less.
Thus, the continuous development of the mathematical (and not only mathematical)
languages leads to a continuous necessity of a transcription and specification of
axiomatic systems. Second, there is no guarantee that the chosen axiomatic system
defines ‘sufficiently well’ the required concept and a continuous comparison with
practice is required in order to check the goodness of the accepted set of axioms.
However, there cannot be again any guarantee that the new version will be the last
and definitive one. Finally, the third limitation already mentioned above has been
discovered by Gödel in his two famous incompleteness theorems (see [10]).
Starting from these considerations, in the chapter, Single and Multi-tape Turing
machines have been described and observed through the lens of the Grossone lan-
guage and methodology . This new language, differently from the traditional one,
makes it possible to distinguish among infinite sequences of different length so en-
abling a more accurate description of Single and Multi-tape Turing machines. The
possibility to express the length of an infinite sequence explicitly gives the pos-
sibility to establish more accurate results regarding the equivalence of machines in
comparison with the observations that can be done by using the traditional language.
It is worth noting that the traditional results and those presented in the chapter
do not contradict one another. They are just written by using different mathematical
languages having different accuracies. Both mathematical languages observe and
describe the same objects – Turing machines – but with different accuracies. As a
result, both traditional and new results are correct with respect to the mathematical
languages used to express them and correspond to different accuracies of the obser-
vation. This fact is one of the manifestations of the relativity of mathematical results
formulated by using different mathematical languages in the same way as the usage
of a stronger lens in a microscope gives a possibility to distinguish more objects
within an object that seems to be unique when viewed by a weaker lens.
Specifically, the Grossone language has allowed us to give the definition of com-
plete output of a Turing machine, to establish when and how the output of a ma-
chine can be observed, and to establish a more accurate relationship between Multi-
A new perspective on Turing machines 29

tape and Single-tape Turing machines as well as between deterministic and non-
deterministic ones. Future research efforts will be geared to apply the Grossone
language and methodology to the description and observation of new and emerging
computational paradigms.

References

1. G. Ausiello, F. D’Amore, and G. Gambosi. Linguaggi, modelli, complessità. Franco Angeli

Editore, Milan, 2 edition, 2006.
2. V. Benci and M. Di Nasso. Numerosities of labeled sets: a new way of counting. Advances in
Mathematics, 173:50–67, 2003.
3. G. Cantor. Contributions to the founding of the theory of transfinite numbers. Dover Publica-
tions, New York, 1955.
4. A. Church. An unsolvable problem of elementary number theory. American Journal of Math-
ematics, 58:345–363, 1936.
5. J.H. Conway and R.K. Guy. The Book of Numbers. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1996.
6. S. Barry Cooper. Computability Theory. Chapman Hall/CRC, 2003.
7. S. De Cosmis and R. De Leone. The use of Grossone in mathematical programming and
operations research. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 218(16):8029–8038, 2012.
8. L. D’Alotto. Cellular automata using infinite computations. Applied Mathematics and Com-
putation, 218(16):8077–8082, 2012.
9. M. Davis. Computability & Unsolvability. Dover Publications, New York, 1985.
10. K. Gödel. Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter
Systeme. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 38:173–198, 1931.
11. P. Gordon. Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science, 306(15
October):496–499, 2004.
12. J. Hopcroft and J. Ullman. Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages and Computation.
Addison-Wesley, Reading Mass., 1st edition, 1979.
13. D.I. Iudin, Ya.D. Sergeyev, and M. Hayakawa. Interpretation of percolation in terms of infinity
computations. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 218(16):8099–8111, 2012.
14. S.C. Kleene. Introduction to metamathematics. D. Van Nostrand, New York, 1952.
15. A.N. Kolmogorov. On the concept of algorithm. Uspekhi Mat. Nauk, 8(4):175–176, 1953.
16. A.N. Kolmogorov and V.A. Uspensky. On the definition of algorithm. Uspekhi Mat. Nauk,
13(4):3–28, 1958.
17. G.W. Leibniz and J.M. Child. The Early Mathematical Manuscripts of Leibniz. Dover Publi-
cations, New York, 2005.
18. T. Levi-Civita. Sui numeri transfiniti. Rend. Acc. Lincei, Series 5a, 113:7–91, 1898.
19. G. Lolli. Metamathematical investigations on the theory of Grossone. to appear in Applied
Mathematics and Computation.
20. G. Lolli. Infinitesimals and infinites in the history of mathematics: A brief survey. Applied
Mathematics and Computation, 218(16):7979–7988, 2012.
21. M. Margenstern. Using Grossone to count the number of elements of infinite sets and the con-
nection with bijections. p-Adic Numbers, Ultrametric Analysis and Applications, 3(3):196–
204, 2011.
22. M. Margenstern. An application of Grossone to the study of a family of tilings of the hyper-
bolic plane. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 218(16):8005–8018, 2012.
23. A.A. Markov Jr. and N.M. Nagorny. Theory of Algorithms. FAZIS, Moscow, second edition,
1996.
24. J.P. Mayberry. The Foundations of Mathematics in the Theory of Sets. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 2001.
25. I. Newton. Method of Fluxions. 1671.
30 Yaroslav D. Sergeyev and Alfredo Garro

26. P. Pica, C. Lemer, V. Izard, and S. Dehaene. Exact and approximate arithmetic in an amazonian
indigene group. Science, 306(15 October):499–503, 2004.
27. E. Post. Finite combinatory processes – formulation 1. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 1:103–105,
1936.
28. A. Robinson. Non-standard Analysis. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1996.
29. E.E. Rosinger. Microscopes and telescopes for theoretical physics: How rich locally and large
globally is the geometric straight line? Prespacetime Journal, 2(4):601–624, 2011.
30. Ya.D. Sergeyev. Arithmetic of Infinity. Edizioni Orizzonti Meridionali, CS, 2003.
31. Ya.D. Sergeyev. Blinking fractals and their quantitative analysis using infinite and infinitesi-
mal numbers. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 33(1):50–75, 2007.
32. Ya.D. Sergeyev. A new applied approach for executing computations with infinite and in-
finitesimal quantities. Informatica, 19(4):567–596, 2008.
33. Ya.D. Sergeyev. Evaluating the exact infinitesimal values of area of Sierpinski’s carpet and
volume of Menger’s sponge. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 42(5):3042–3046, 2009.
34. Ya.D. Sergeyev. Numerical computations and mathematical modelling with infinite and in-
finitesimal numbers. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computing, 29:177–195, 2009.
35. Ya.D. Sergeyev. Numerical point of view on Calculus for functions assuming finite, infinite,
and infinitesimal values over finite, infinite, and infinitesimal domains. Nonlinear Analysis
Series A: Theory, Methods & Applications, 71(12):e1688–e1707, 2009.
36. Ya.D. Sergeyev. Counting systems and the First Hilbert problem. Nonlinear Analysis Series
A: Theory, Methods & Applications, 72(3-4):1701–1708, 2010.
37. Ya.D. Sergeyev. Lagrange Lecture: Methodology of numerical computations with infinities
and infinitesimals. Rendiconti del Seminario Matematico dell’Università e del Politecnico di
Torino, 68(2):95–113, 2010.
38. Ya.D. Sergeyev. Higher order numerical differentiation on the infinity computer. Optimization
Letters, 5(4):575–585, 2011.
39. Ya.D. Sergeyev. On accuracy of mathematical languages used to deal with the Riemann zeta
function and the Dirichlet eta function. p-Adic Numbers, Ultrametric Analysis and Applica-
tions, 3(2):129–148, 2011.
40. Ya.D. Sergeyev. Using blinking fractals for mathematical modelling of processes of growth in
biological systems. Informatica, 22(4):559–576, 2011.
41. Ya.D. Sergeyev. Solving ordinary differential equations by working with infinitesimals nu-
merically on the infinity computer. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 219(22):10668–
10681, 2013.
42. Ya.D. Sergeyev and A. Garro. Observability of Turing machines: A refinement of the theory
of computation. Informatica, 21(3):425–454, 2010.
43. Ya.D. Sergeyev and A. Garro. Single-tape and Multi-tape Turing Machines through the lens
of the Grossone methodology. The Journal of Supercomputing, 65(2):645–663, 2013.
44. A.M. Turing. On computable numbers, with an application to the entscheidungsproblem.
Proceedings of London Mathematical Society, series 2, 42:230–265, 1936-1937.
45. M.C. Vita, S. De Bartolo, C. Fallico, and M. Veltri. Usage of infinitesimals in the Menger’s
Sponge model of porosity. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 218(16):8187–8196, 2012.
46. J. Wallis. Arithmetica infinitorum. 1656.
47. A.A. Zhigljavsky. Computing sums of conditionally convergent and divergent series using the
concept of Grossone. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 218(16):8064–8076, 2012.
48. A. Žilinskas. On strong homogeneity of two global optimization algorithms based on sta-
tistical models of multimodal objective functions. Applied Mathematics and Computation,
218(16):8131–8136, 2012.