It was in this passage that he drew first attention to the richness inherent in a stored-program universal machine.
这一段文字表明，图灵第一次意识到了存储程序式通用计算机的真正潜力。
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:
但他同时也意识到，严格来说，修改指令的能力并没有增加机器的能力，他写道：
How can the rules of a machine change?
一台机器的规则怎么能自动改变？
They should describe completely how the machine will react whatever its history might be, whatever changes it might undergo.
规则从一开始就应该完整地描述机器在任何情况下、在发生任何改变时，会有什么样的反应，
The rules are thus quite time-invariant...
因此这套规则本身是不会改变的……
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.
对这个悖论的解释是，规则在自动学习过程中发生的改变，相对来说是动态的，它们不断地修改，而且只是暂时有效。
The reader may draw a parallel with the Constitution of the United States.
对于这一点，读者可以类比美国的宪法。
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.
但是从严格的逻辑角度看，图灵认为改变指令的过程与人类的学习过程具有值得注意的相似性，这一点应该要强调。
He imagined the progress of the machine altering its own instructions, as like that of a 'pupil' learning from a 'master'.
他把机器在运行过程中改变自己的指令的过程，看成是小学生学习新知识的过程。
(It was a typically quick shift to the 'states of mind' idea of the machine from the 'instruction note' view.)
这是图灵典型的跳跃式类比，就像从"指令便条"跳到"思维状态"。