>>> For a given function, sure. But unless your machine can perform an infinite number of computations per time step, no machine will be fast enough to compute all possible functions, which is the point.
I mentioned this somewhere further down in the comments, but a machine that could perform an infinite number of computations would break Turing's proof of the undecidability of the halting problem over Turing machines. That probably furthers Akl's claim.
I most definitely think this is interesting in that it is a new set of assumptions about what a computer is and what it should be capable of doing. All we have to do now is define a new (probably recursively-defined) automaton capable of infinite growth in it's possible inputs.
Then again, if a computer had an infinite amount of inputs, that raises even more interesting questions about what problems possibly then become decidable.
I mentioned this somewhere further down in the comments, but a machine that could perform an infinite number of computations would break Turing's proof of the undecidability of the halting problem over Turing machines. That probably furthers Akl's claim.
I most definitely think this is interesting in that it is a new set of assumptions about what a computer is and what it should be capable of doing. All we have to do now is define a new (probably recursively-defined) automaton capable of infinite growth in it's possible inputs.
Then again, if a computer had an infinite amount of inputs, that raises even more interesting questions about what problems possibly then become decidable.