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.   
      
   >>   
   >>> 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)