XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   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   
      
   >   
   >> 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   
   >>   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   arising us out of the computing dark ages,   
   please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,   
   ~ nick   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)