Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Simply defining =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=B6del?= Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 11:29:17 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 36 Message-ID: <87eeoi71j6.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> References: <87h7thfh2t.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <873650esv8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87eeok1zgp.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87d044mshx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <873650m4mq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87tuxflhoq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87imdvl9ew.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87364zkytg.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87a6z6juzc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="14ca510127baf9abda7312821a677a46"; logging-data="21721"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+3EXt39MAOEcFdWodzDZ9Z" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:bBQAckuVPecIqjnThqwd0Bv2IBM= sha1:0Fz+VUuwvpplavNbuIiYw79xdbM= Xref: csiph.com comp.theory:22171 olcott writes: > On 8/7/2020 12:13 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2020-08-07 10:48, olcott wrote: >> >>> My actual Turing Machine was more fully encoded than any Turing >>> machine that Turing himself ever wrote. >> >> What does that even mean? You obviously have some new and entirely >> idiosyncratic meaning for the word 'encoded'. How does encode a >> Turing Machine more filly than Turing did? >> >> André > > If I write pseudo-code that can be directly translated into fully > operational software this pseudo-code has all of the details of the > required algorithm fully specified, thus is fully encoded. To be clear, are you still asserting that you have (had?) such a fully encoded Turing machine? If so, I presume you could easily determine how many states it has. Do you know how many states it has? If so, how many states does it have? (That's two distinct questions.) > To the best of my understanding Turing never wrote any details of any > algorithm using his concept of a Turing machine. He merely specified > the underlying infrastructure that could be used for specifying > algorithms. I don't know whether that's correct or not. If it is, then comparing your Turing machine to Turing's seems like meaningless bragging. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */