Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.theory > #139356
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: a subset of turing machines can still be turing complete |
| Date | 2026-01-22 21:51 -0800 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <10kv29a$3iiom$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <FXXbR.239463$VY9.52946@fx10.iad> <10kqve0$28eco$1@dont-email.me> <10krt4d$2jek9$1@dont-email.me> <10kube0$3ci1e$1@dont-email.me> <10kudfu$3fch3$1@dont-email.me> |
On 1/22/26 3:56 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
> On 22/01/2026 23:21, dart200 wrote:
>> On 1/21/26 5:05 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
>>> On 21/01/2026 16:38, dart200 wrote:
>>>> a current thesis of mine is that given a total enumeration of TM (in
>>>> order of increasing complexity/number of states), no paradoxical machine
>>>> produces an input->output mapping that is a first of it's kind - ie
>>>> there will always be some simpler machine that exists and produces an
>>>> equivalent input->output mapping.
>>>
>>> Just for clarity, do you mean to say that for every tuple of tuples
>>> {initial states {tape×machine} × final states {tape×machine}} there is a
>>> halting machine that has fewer states than any non-halting machine?
>>>
>>> Yes, because none of the nonhalting machines has a final state so its
>>> tuple can't be constructed and therefore is not first of anything, and
>>> is /not/, just /isn't/.
>>>
>>> Do you mean there is a simpler machine with the same initial state for
>>> each of the nonhalting machine's reachable states?
>>>
>>
>> let us refer to turing's solution for defining "output" in regards to
>> infinitely running machines, because they can still have output:
>>
>> the tape is divided into alternating cells: F-squares (figure) and
>> E-squares (erasure). F-squares hold permanent output of the computed
>> sequence, and can only be written once. E-squares are for
>> temporary/scratch work necessary for the computation, but not actually
>> the output of the machine.
>
> I think you need to restrict your quantification of machines called
> "paradoxical" to those that only write such squares once yet have a
when i say paradoxical, i'm referring a machines that cannot be decided
upon from some specific interface because they query that interface and
contradict it.
> state whereupon that notion of output doesn't extend yet the machine
> doesn't halt. Perhaps Turing defines that notion as /the/ meaning of
> "paradoxical" and if so, I think it must be cited to form a useful
> challenge.
turing called it "uncomputable" please do refer to his paper /on
computable number/ p247 for further clarification on what he meant. few
people talking about this have bothered to read and understand it
explicitly.
>
> I think it is an important improvement to restate your conjecture but
> you should not take this message as an indication that I will reply
> further - I probably will but I have other things I'm thinking about
> even though I value this process greatly for combing my brain into the
> mental coiffure that easily formalises conjectures and reduces them to
> intuitive lemmas.
>
my nigga, i am past the point of expecting anything from anyone anymore,
ur all fucking useless or i wouldn't have to be here posting...
and i will get defensive if u suggest again like i think otherwise
--
arising us out of the computing dark ages,
please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
~ nick
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
a subset of turing machines can still be turing complete dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-20 19:06 -0800
Re: a subset of turing machines can still be turing complete Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-20 22:43 -0500
Re: a subset of turing machines can still be turing complete dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-21 08:38 -0800
Re: a subset of turing machines can still be turing complete Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-22 01:05 +0000
Re: a subset of turing machines can still be turing complete dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-22 15:21 -0800
Re: a subset of turing machines can still be turing complete Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-22 23:56 +0000
Re: a subset of turing machines can still be turing complete dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-22 21:51 -0800
Re: a subset of turing machines can still be turing complete Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-01-23 11:53 -0500
Re: a subset of turing machines can still be turing complete dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-23 10:30 -0800
Re: a subset of turing machines can still be turing complete Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-01-23 17:59 -0500
Re: a subset of turing machines can still be turing complete Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-28 23:22 +0000
Re: a subset of turing machines can still be turing complete dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-29 21:18 -0800
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-22 17:58 -0600
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-22 21:21 -0800
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-23 04:19 -0600
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-23 08:29 -0800
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-23 11:14 -0600
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-23 11:24 -0600
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-01-23 18:01 -0500
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-23 17:50 -0600
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-23 20:30 -0500
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-23 19:51 -0600
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-01-23 20:56 -0500
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-23 21:05 -0600
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 07:16 -0500
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-24 08:21 -0600
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-01-24 09:39 -0500
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-24 09:48 -0600
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 12:19 -0500
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-01-24 10:42 +0200
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 01:21 -0800
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 07:24 -0500
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 08:49 -0800
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 12:24 -0500
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 14:28 -0800
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 19:52 -0500
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 19:03 -0800
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-25 13:20 -0500
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 13:07 -0800
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-29 00:15 +0000
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-29 00:28 -0800
Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-01-25 13:12 +0200
Re: a subset of turing machines can still be turing complete Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-01-21 22:41 -0500
Re: a subset of turing machines can still be turing complete dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-22 21:44 -0800
Re: a subset of turing machines can still be turing complete Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-23 11:59 -0500
Re: a subset of turing machines can still be turing complete dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-23 10:42 -0800
Re: a subset of turing machines can still be turing complete Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-01-23 17:45 -0500
Re: a subset of turing machines can still be turing complete Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-01-21 10:45 +0200
csiph-web