雙語暢銷書《艾倫圖靈傳》第8章:水銀延時線(83)
It was in this passage that he drew first attention to the richness inherent in a stored-program universal machine.
He was well aware that strictly speaking, exploitation of the ability to modify the instructions could not enlarge the scope of the machine, later writing:
但他同時也意識到，嚴格來說，修改指令的能力並沒有增加機器的能力，他寫道：How can the rules of a machine change?
一臺機器的規則怎麼能自動改變？
They should describe completely how the machine will react whatever its history might be, whatever changes it might undergo.
規則從一開始就應該完整地描述機器在任何情況下、在發生任何改變時，會有什麼樣的反應，The rules are thus quite time-invariant...
因此這套規則本身是不會改變的……The explanation of the paradox is that the rules which get changed in the learning process are of a rather less pretentious kind, claiming only an ephemeral validity.
對這個悖論的解釋是，規則在自動學習過程中發生的改變，相對來說是動態的，它們不斷地修改，而且只是暫時有效。The reader may draw a parallel with the Constitution of the United States.
對於這一點，讀者可以類比美國的憲法。But with that strictly logical reservation, he held the process of changing instructions to be significantly close to that of human learning, and deserving of emphasis.
但是從嚴格的邏輯角度看，圖靈認爲改變指令的過程與人類的學習過程具有值得注意的相似性，這一點應該要強調。He imagined the progress of the machine altering its own instructions, as like that of a 'pupil' learning from a 'master'.
他把機器在運行過程中改變自己的指令的過程，看成是小學生學習新知識的過程。(It was a typically quick shift to the 'states of mind' idea of the machine from the 'instruction note' view.)
這是圖靈典型的跳躍式類比，就像從"指令便條"跳到"思維狀態"。
