Answers.Body: <p>I presume the proof the OP is referring to can be found in <a href="http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-1-4612-0707-8" rel="nofollow">this monograph</a> by Hava Siegelmann?</p>
  
  <p>In his article <a href="http://www1.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~pmt6sbc/docs/davis.myth.pdf" rel="nofollow">'The Myth of Hypercomputation'</a>, the eminent computer scientist Martin Davis explains (p8-9) that there is nothing 'super Turing' about this formulation.</p>
  
  <p>EDIT: It's looking like the claim about <em>rational</em> weights being super-Turing is made in <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25354762" rel="nofollow">this</a>  more recent paper by Siegelmann, which introduces an additional assumption of <em>plasticity</em>, i.e. that weights can be dynamically updated.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-08-03T16:05:28.357Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-09-03T17:38:06.577Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2016-09-03T17:38:06.577Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: NietzscheanAI
Answers.Body: <p>You mean real numbered weights (specifically, <strong><em>ir</strong>rational</em>). This would require a machine that has unlimited precision over irrational values. I've seen machine parts that have many qualities. I've never seen one that has unlimited qualities. QM may give us some magical transistors that can hold an unlimited number of different values - or by deferring computation into the future and then teleporting the results back into the past (our present). Outside of that, for classical systems, you'd need a analog device that can output irrational values with unlimited precision. I don't think we've discovered any devices that can do that.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-09-03T16:34:55.200Z
Answers.Text: Do you have a link? Not behind a paywall?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Doxosophoi
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-09-03T17:15:13.777Z
Answers.Text: Something must have got lost in translation. This is from a paper on alanturing.net: _In the special case where all the interconnection weights are rational, each such network is equivalent to a Turing machine (Siegelmann and Sontag 1992). If the connection matrix contains at least one irrational weight, the processor network can compute non Turing-machine-computable functions, even in polynomial time._ p29,  [BEYOND THE UNIVERSAL TURING MACHINE](http://www.alanturing.net/turing_archive/pages/pub/beyond/beyond.pdf)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Doxosophoi
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-09-03T17:21:11.857Z
Answers.Text: I just read those two referenced pages. I see no argument that a neural net with just rational weights is hyper Turing.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Doxosophoi
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-09-03T17:25:42.540Z
Answers.Text: Yeah, I'm not saying they're they same thing. But it is the set of irrationals, within real numbers, not rationals, that suggest some hyper Turing possibility.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Doxosophoi
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-09-03T01:47:11.140Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-09-03T01:47:11.140Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Doxosophoi
Body: <p>It is proved that a recurrent neural net with rational weights can be a super-Turing machine. Can we achieve this in practice ?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-08-02T23:05:28.937Z
Comments.Text: Can you add a citation for the proof?
Comments.UserDisplayName: dynrepsys
Tags: <neural-networks><hypercomputation><recurrent-neural-networks>
Title: Can we ever achieve hypercomputation using recurrent neural networks?
UserDisplayName: Hazem A. A. Nomer
ThreadText: # Can we ever achieve hypercomputation using recurrent neural networks?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2016-08-02)
  
  It is proved that a recurrent neural net with rational weights can be a super-Turing machine. Can we achieve this in practice ?
  
  **Tags:** neural-networks, hypercomputation, recurrent-neural-networks
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Can you add a citation for the proof?  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2016-08-03. Score: 4
  
  I presume the proof the OP is referring to can be found in [this monograph](http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-1-4612-0707-8) by Hava Siegelmann?
  
  In his article ['The Myth of Hypercomputation'](http://www1.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~pmt6sbc/docs/davis.myth.pdf), the eminent computer scientist Martin Davis explains (p8-9) that there is nothing 'super Turing' about this formulation.
  
  EDIT: It's looking like the claim about *rational* weights being super-Turing is made in [this](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25354762) more recent paper by Siegelmann, which introduces an additional assumption of *plasticity*, i.e. that weights can be dynamically updated.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2016-09-03. Score: 1
  
  You mean real numbered weights (specifically, ***ir***rational). This would require a machine that has unlimited precision over irrational values. I've seen machine parts that have many qualities. I've never seen one that has unlimited qualities. QM may give us some magical transistors that can hold an unlimited number of different values - or by deferring computation into the future and then teleporting the results back into the past (our present). Outside of that, for classical systems, you'd need a analog device that can output irrational values with unlimited precision. I don't think we've discovered any devices that can do that.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_3**: Do you have a link? Not behind a paywall?  
  > **username_3**: Something must have got lost in translation. This is from a paper on alanturing.net: _In the special case where all the interconnection weights are rational, each such network is equivalent to a Turing machine (Siegelmann and Sontag 1992). If the connection matrix contains at least one irrational weight, the processor network can compute non Turing-machine-computable functions, even in polynomial time._ p29,  [BEYOND THE UNIVERSAL TURING MACHINE](http://www.alanturing.net/turing_archive/pages/pub/beyond/beyond.pdf)  
  > **username_3**: I just read those two referenced pages. I see no argument that a neural net with just rational weights is hyper Turing.  
  > **username_3**: Yeah, I'm not saying they're they same thing. But it is the set of irrationals, within real numbers, not rationals, that suggest some hyper Turing possibility.  
  
  ---
  
  