home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   sci.logic      Logic -- math, philosophy & computationa      262,912 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 262,692 of 262,912   
   olcott to Richard Damon   
   Re: a subset of Turing machines can stil   
   23 Jan 26 17:50:24   
   
   XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/23/2026 5:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/23/26 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Since DD isn't doing a proof or making a declariation of truth, "non-   
   > well-founded" is a meaningless term in this context.   
   >   
      
   Only while you make sure to have no idea what   
   this term means:   
   "non-well-founded in proof theoretic semantics"   
      
   --   
   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)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca