XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 1/24/26 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 1/24/2026 10:03 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >> On 1/24/26 7:42 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>> On 1/24/2026 9:12 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>> On 1/24/26 6:53 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>> On 1/24/2026 8:38 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 1/24/26 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 1/24/2026 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> the CT-thesis is a thesis, not a proof.   
   >>>>>>>>> *I think that I fixed that*   
   >>>>>>>>> It seems to me that if something cannot be computed   
   >>>>>>>>> by applying finite string transformation rules to   
   >>>>>>>>> input finite strings then it cannot be computed.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> As soon as this is shown to be categorically impossible   
   >>>>>>>>> then the thesis turns into a proof.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> In other words, you just don't know what you are talking about.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> It is categorically impossible to define a   
   >>>>>>> computation more powerful than that above.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> i mean turing machines are just a method to specify string   
   >>>>>> transformations on the tape ???   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> they are primarily defined by a large transition table for what   
   >>>>>> operation is done based on the state of the machine...   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> No if you look at the Chomsky Hierarchy   
   >>>>> they are much more powerful than finite   
   >>>>> state machines.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy   
   >>>>   
   >>>> sorry idk what u mean: Type-0 recursively enumerable langauges,   
   >>>> "recognized" by turing machines, are the most "powerful" in that   
   >>>> they encompass the "most" computations ... ?   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> It requires the most powerful machine to recognize them.   
   >>> Regular thus finite-state-machines are the weakest.   
   >>   
   >> i literally said turing machine, not finite-state-automota... ???   
   >>   
   >   
   > Yes you did. I reread what you said.   
   >   
      
   i hope u've paying at little a bit of attention to what i've been   
   writing recently.   
      
   i have a more formal statement to might on my more recent developments   
   where i'm ultimately proposing to just ignore the undecidable paradoxes.   
      
   might be worthy of another few r/logic posts, email spam, maybe even   
   paying for academia.edu again...   
      
   --   
   arising us out of the computing dark ages,   
   please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,   
   ~ nick   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)