XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   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.   
      
   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)