Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.theory > #139452
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng |
| Subject | Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO |
| Date | 2026-01-24 20:03 -0800 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <10l44m3$1a2tc$3@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <10l3vi7$1ajd0$1@dont-email.me> <10l3vmn$1a2tc$2@dont-email.me> <10l40jg$1attf$1@dont-email.me> <10l41mr$1a2so$5@dont-email.me> <10l43fa$1bm7c$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 1/24/26 7:42 PM, olcott wrote: > On 1/24/2026 9:12 PM, dart200 wrote: >> On 1/24/26 6:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 1/24/2026 8:38 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>> On 1/24/26 6:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 1/24/2026 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 1/24/26 6:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> the CT-thesis is a thesis, not a proof. >>>>>>> *I think that I fixed that* >>>>>>> It seems to me that if something cannot be computed >>>>>>> by applying finite string transformation rules to >>>>>>> input finite strings then it cannot be computed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As soon as this is shown to be categorically impossible >>>>>>> then the thesis turns into a proof. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words, you just don't know what you are talking about. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is categorically impossible to define a >>>>> computation more powerful than that above. >>>> >>>> i mean turing machines are just a method to specify string >>>> transformations on the tape ??? >>>> >>>> they are primarily defined by a large transition table for what >>>> operation is done based on the state of the machine... >>>> >>> >>> No if you look at the Chomsky Hierarchy >>> they are much more powerful than finite >>> state machines. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy >> >> sorry idk what u mean: Type-0 recursively enumerable langauges, >> "recognized" by turing machines, are the most "powerful" in that they >> encompass the "most" computations ... ? >> > > It requires the most powerful machine to recognize them. > Regular thus finite-state-machines are the weakest. i literally said turing machine, not finite-state-automota... ??? > >> ... huh a bit unrelated but it's interesting to note that despite >> being technically the same cardinality, the Type-0 language >> encompasses "more" computations than say Type-1 Type-2 or Type-3 >> language. >> >> sure we call this "power" and not "size", but the fundamental fact is >> that Type-0 includes computations of Type 1, 2, and 3 languages + more >> that aren't included in any of those, so it includes "more" >> computations than the more limited types. >> >>> >>>>> >>>>>> The fact that it is impossible to build a computation that, given >>>>>> a representation of another computation and its input, determine >>>>>> for all cases if the computation will halt does nothing to further >>>>>> the question of are Turing Machines the most powerful form of >>>>>> computation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- 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
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-24 17:06 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 19:52 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 18:05 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-25 13:23 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 13:04 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-25 17:40 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 22:50 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-26 01:35 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-26 11:43 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-26 11:45 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-26 17:28 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-27 00:00 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-24 20:35 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 18:38 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-24 20:53 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 19:12 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-24 21:42 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 20:03 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-24 22:06 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 21:45 -0800
csiph-web