• Buchi, J.R. (1962), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy and Science, inProc.1960 Int.Congr., Vol. 1 of 1, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Chihara, C.S. (1965), ‘On the Possibility of Completing an Infinite Process’,Philosophical Review 74, pp. 74–87.

  Google Scholar 

• Copeland, J. (1998a),Super Turing-Machines, Complexity 4, pp. 30–32.

  Google Scholar 

• Copeland, J. (1998b), Even TuringMachines Can Compute Uncomputable Functions, in C. Calude, J. Casti, M. Dinneen, eds,Unconventional Models of Computation, London: Springer, pp. 150–164.

  Google Scholar 

• Copeland, J. (2002), Accelerating TuringMachines, Minds and Machines, in C. Cleland, ed.,Special Issue on Effective Procedures, (in press).

• Earman, J. (1995), Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers and Shrieks: Singularities and Acausalities in Relativistic Spacetimes, Oxford University Press, New York: The Clarendon Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Earman J. and Norton, J.D. (1993), ‘Forever is a Day: Supertasks in Pitowski and Malament-Hogarth Spacetimes’,Philos.Sci. 60(1), pp. 22–42.

  Google Scholar 

• Feferman, S. and Spector, C. (1962), ‘Incompleteness Along Paths in Progressions of Theories’,The Journal of Symbolic Logic 27, pp. 383–390.

  Google Scholar 

• Hamkins J.D. and Lewis A. (2000), ‘Infinite Time Turing Machines’,The Journal of Symbolic Logic 65(2), pp. 567–604.

  Google Scholar 

• Hamkins J.D. and Seabold, D. (2001), ‘Infinite Time Turing Machines with Only One Tape’,Mathematical Logic Quarterly 47(2), pp. 271–287.

  Google Scholar 

• Hamkins J.D. and Lewis, A. (2002) ‘Post's Problem for Supertasks Has Both Positive and Negative Solutions’,Archive for Mathematical Logic 41(6), pp. 507–523.

  Google Scholar 

• Hogarth, (1992), ‘Does General Relativity Allow an Observer to View an Eternity in a Finite Time?’Foundations of Physics Letters 5, pp. 173–181.

• Hogarth, (1994), ‘Non-Turing Computers and Non-Turing Computability,’ in D. Hull, M. Forbes and R.B. Burian, eds., Vol. 1 ofEast Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 126–138.

• Löwe, B. (2001), ‘Revision Sequences and Computers with an Infinite Amount of Time’,Logic Comput. 11(1), pp. 25–40.

  Google Scholar 

• Laraudogoitia, J.P. (1996), ‘A Beautiful Supertask’,Mind 105(417), pp. 81–84.

  Google Scholar 

• Pitowsky, (1990), ‘The Physical Church Thesis and Physical Computational Complexity’,Iyyun 39, pp. 81–99.

• Sacks, G.E. (1990),Higher Recursion Theory, Berlin, Springer.

  Google Scholar 

• Soare, R.I. (1987),Recursively Enumerable Sets and Degrees, New York, Springer.

  Google Scholar 

• Thomson, (1954-55), ‘Tasks and Super-Tasks’,Analysis XV, pp. 1–13.

  Google Scholar 

• Welch, P. (1999), ‘Friedman's Trick: Minimality Arguments in the Infinite Time Turing Degrees’, inSets and Proofs, Proceedings ASL Logic Colloquium, 258, pp. 425–436.

  Google Scholar 

• Welch, P. (2000a), ‘The Lengths of Infinite time Turing Machine Computations’,Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society 32(2), pp. 129–136.

  Google Scholar 

• Welch, P. (200b), ‘Eventually Infinite Time Turing Machine Degrees: Infinite tTime Decidable Reals’,Journal of Symbolic Logic 65(3), p. 11.

  Google Scholar 

Download references