There is a claim on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-recursive_algorithm#Inductive_Turing_machines that 'Simple inductive Turing machines are equivalent to other models of computation such as general Turing machines of Schmidhuber, trial and error predicates of Hilary Putnam, limiting partial recursive functions of Gold, and trial-and-error machines of Hintikka and Mutanen.[1] More advanced inductive Turing machines are much more powerful. There are hierarchies of inductive Turing machines that can decide membership in arbitrary sets of the arithmetical hierarchy(Burgin 2005). In comparison with other equivalent models of computation, simple inductive Turing machines and general Turing machines give direct constructions of computing automata that are thoroughly grounded in physical machines'.

Wiki also says these are different from infinite time Turing machines.

Are inductive turing machines different from turing machines with oracles?

Are inductive turing machines physically realizable (at least in the same sense of realizaility of Turing machines as Intel processors with bounded RAM and one that degrades over time)?

Can inductive turing machines solve the halting problem (essentially Hilbert's $10$th as well)?

Please refer here for overcoming Church-Turing Hypothesis with Inductive Turing machines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-recursive_algorithm#Relation_to_the_Church.E2.80.93Turing_thesis.

There is a claim on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-recursive_algorithm#Inductive_Turing_machines that 'Simple inductive Turing machines are equivalent to other models of computation such as general Turing machines of Schmidhuber, trial and error predicates of Hilary Putnam, limiting partial recursive functions of Gold, and trial-and-error machines of Hintikka and Mutanen.[1] More advanced inductive Turing machines are much more powerful. There are hierarchies of inductive Turing machines that can decide membership in arbitrary sets of the arithmetical hierarchy(Burgin 2005). In comparison with other equivalent models of computation, simple inductive Turing machines and general Turing machines give direct constructions of computing automata that are thoroughly grounded in physical machines'.

Wiki also says these are different from infinite time Turing machines.

Are inductive turing machines different from turing machines with oracles?

Are inductive turing machines physically realizable (at least in the same sense of realizaility of Turing machines as Intel processors with bounded RAM and one that degrades over time)?

Can inductive turing machines solve the halting problem (essentially Hilbert's $10$th as well)?

Please refer here for overcoming Church-Turing Hypothesis with Inductive Turing machines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-recursive_algorithm#Relation_to_the_Church.E2.80.93Turing_thesis.

Here is another article (published in communications of the ACM and well cited) http://www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/medinfo/g6080/misc/p82-burgin.pdf.

There is a claim on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-recursive_algorithm#Inductive_Turing_machines that 'Simple inductive Turing machines are equivalent to other models of computation such as general Turing machines of Schmidhuber, trial and error predicates of Hilary Putnam, limiting partial recursive functions of Gold, and trial-and-error machines of Hintikka and Mutanen.[1] More advanced inductive Turing machines are much more powerful. There are hierarchies of inductive Turing machines that can decide membership in arbitrary sets of the arithmetical hierarchy(Burgin 2005). In comparison with other equivalent models of computation, simple inductive Turing machines and general Turing machines give direct constructions of computing automata that are thoroughly grounded in physical machines'.

Wiki also says these are different from infinite time Turing machines.

Are inductive turing machines different from turing machines with oracles?

Are inductive turing machines physically realizable (at least in the same sense of realizaility of Turing machines as Intel processors with bounded RAM and one that degrades over time)?

Can inductive turing machines solve the halting problem (essentially Hilbert's $10$th as well)?

There is a claim on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-recursive_algorithm#Inductive_Turing_machines that 'Simple inductive Turing machines are equivalent to other models of computation such as general Turing machines of Schmidhuber, trial and error predicates of Hilary Putnam, limiting partial recursive functions of Gold, and trial-and-error machines of Hintikka and Mutanen.[1] More advanced inductive Turing machines are much more powerful. There are hierarchies of inductive Turing machines that can decide membership in arbitrary sets of the arithmetical hierarchy(Burgin 2005). In comparison with other equivalent models of computation, simple inductive Turing machines and general Turing machines give direct constructions of computing automata that are thoroughly grounded in physical machines'.

Wiki also says these are different from infinite time Turing machines.

Are inductive turing machines different from turing machines with oracles?

Are inductive turing machines physically realizable (at least in the same sense of realizaility of Turing machines as Intel processors with bounded RAM and one that degrades over time)?

Can inductive turing machines solve the halting problem (essentially Hilbert's $10$th as well)?

Please refer here for overcoming Church-Turing Hypothesis with Inductive Turing machines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-recursive_algorithm#Relation_to_the_Church.E2.80.93Turing_thesis.

There is a claim on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-recursive_algorithm#Inductive_Turing_machines that 'Simple inductive Turing machines are equivalent to other models of computation such as general Turing machines of Schmidhuber, trial and error predicates of Hilary Putnam, limiting partial recursive functions of Gold, and trial-and-error machines of Hintikka and Mutanen.[1] More advanced inductive Turing machines are much more powerful. There are hierarchies of inductive Turing machines that can decide membership in arbitrary sets of the arithmetical hierarchy(Burgin 2005). In comparison with other equivalent models of computation, simple inductive Turing machines and general Turing machines give direct constructions of computing automata that are thoroughly grounded in physical machines'.

Are inductive turing machines different from turing machines with oracles?

Are inductive turing machines physically realizable?

Can inductive turing machines solve the halting problem (essentially Hilbert's $10$th as well)?

There is a claim on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-recursive_algorithm#Inductive_Turing_machines that 'Simple inductive Turing machines are equivalent to other models of computation such as general Turing machines of Schmidhuber, trial and error predicates of Hilary Putnam, limiting partial recursive functions of Gold, and trial-and-error machines of Hintikka and Mutanen.[1] More advanced inductive Turing machines are much more powerful. There are hierarchies of inductive Turing machines that can decide membership in arbitrary sets of the arithmetical hierarchy(Burgin 2005). In comparison with other equivalent models of computation, simple inductive Turing machines and general Turing machines give direct constructions of computing automata that are thoroughly grounded in physical machines'.

Wiki also says these are different from infinite time Turing machines.

Are inductive turing machines different from turing machines with oracles?

Are inductive turing machines physically realizable (at least in the same sense of realizaility of Turing machines as Intel processors with bounded RAM and one that degrades over time)?

Can inductive turing machines solve the halting problem (essentially Hilbert's $10$th as well)?