Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.ai.philosophy    |    Perhaps we should ask SkyNet about this    |    59,235 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 59,166 of 59,235    |
|    olcott to All    |
|    Re: a subset of Turing machines can stil    |
|    23 Jan 26 11:24:04    |
      XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math       From: polcott333@gmail.com              On 1/23/2026 10:29 AM, dart200 wrote:       > On 1/23/26 2:19 AM, olcott wrote:       >> 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.       >       > but no humans have and that's what actually counts       >              *It really does seem to me that I am a human*              Also HHH(DD) Really does correctly detect the       non-well-founded cyclic dependency in the       evaluation graph.              https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c              It has done this for three years now. The only thing       that has changed is the words I use to describe what       it does. This anchors my ideas in the well established       ideas of others. Here are the exactly correct terms:               Within well-founded proof theoretic semantics        anchored in the operational semantics of the        c programming language HHH(DD) is correct to        reject its input as non-wellfounded.              >>       >>> 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 |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca