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 |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca