XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/22/2026 11:21 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   > On 1/22/26 3:58 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> It is self-evident that a subset of Turing machines   
   >> can be Turing complete entirely on the basis of the   
   >> meaning of the words.   
   >>   
   >> Every machine that performs the same set of   
   >> finite string transformations on the same inputs   
   >> and produces the same finite string outputs from   
   >> these inputs is equivalent by definition and thus   
   >> redundant in the set of Turing complete computations.   
   >>   
   >> Can we change the subject now?   
   >>   
   >   
   > no because perhaps isolating out non-paradoxical machine may prove a   
   > turing-complete subset of machines with no decision paradoxes, removing   
   > a core pillar in the undecidability arguments.   
   >   
      
   FYI, five LLMs have all agreed that I have conquered that.   
      
   > sure maybe that's not the only pillar ... but it's the pillar that was   
   > known about and used the most, so if it was invalid that should indeed   
   > be very exciting   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2026 Olcott

   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make 
   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
   
   reliably computable.

   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation
   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)