XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 1/24/26 12:42 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > On 23/01/2026 07:21, 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.   
   >   
   > The set of non-paradoxical Turing machines is indeed Truing complete   
   > because there are no paradoxical Turing machines. Of course any Turing   
   > machine can be mentioned in a paradox.   
   >   
      
   i don't see how the lack of paradoxes ensures all possible computations   
   are represented (therefore being turing complete).   
      
   paradoxical machines are still produce computations ... just not   
   computations that are unique in their functional result compared to   
   non-paradoxical ones.   
      
   --   
   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)