Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.theory > #139369

Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO

From Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net>
Newsgroups comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy
Subject Re: a subset of Turing machines can still be Turing complete PLO
Date 2026-01-23 18:01 -0500
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <10l0uk1$89a1$2@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (5 earlier) <10kudjo$3fe0a$1@dont-email.me> <10kv0g5$3iion$1@dont-email.me> <10kvhvs$3q24q$1@dont-email.me> <10l07lc$1scn$1@dont-email.me> <10l0arm$3a90$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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.

What is non-well-founded is HHH's determination that DD is non-halting, 
as it never actually proved it for the given input.

In part because you don't actually define the input correctly.

> 
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
> 
> It has done this for three years now. The only thing
> that has changed is the words I use to describe what
> it does. This anchors my ideas in the well established
> ideas of others. Here are the exactly correct terms:
> 
>    Within well-founded proof theoretic semantics
>    anchored in the operational semantics of the
>    c programming language HHH(DD) is correct to
>    reject its input as non-wellfounded.
> 
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
>

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

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