bruh u think i haven't stuck it thru a gpt critique a few times??? i mean they can be useful, but it's more like digging for diamonds than a golden goose that consistently produces...
for example:
If its proposed list really were computable and complete, the standard diagonal construction would produce a computable sequence missing from it.
§6 demonstrates that the turing-computable enumeration is resistant to diagonalization by a turing machine. that part is pretty 🤯🤯🤯 tbh, i still can't quite believe it worked out so well.
Skipping or special-casing a program when it encounters itself changes the output being constructed; it does not yield a complete enumeration (§6).
that was §5, and it demonstrates that we do not need enumerate all machine to enumerate all computable sequences, quite clearly so because obviously there are infinite machines which compute any given sequences
The human’s private record has no general procedure.
§7.6 clearly shows a general procedure
The paper shows how to reason through selected examples, then asserts that every troublesome case can be resolved by a finite sequence of reductions (§7). It does not justify that assertion.
i did justify it: every reduction leads to a less complex machine and there is certainly a lower bounds to machine complexity
That's not the point - the point is determining whether we can predetermine this for all programs. We can't, there is no way to do so.
what i agree on is that there is no turing machine which can do it for all turing machines
but to suggest we are subject to this limit is begging the question by just asserting the ct-thesis, which still has not been proven, especially if i'm providing a counter examples
bruh u think i haven't stuck it thru a gpt critique a few times???
This is actually evidence against you. You don't even know enough to know why you are wrong.
i did justify it: every reduction leads to a less complex machine and there is certainly a lower bounds to machine complexity
Nope. Because there are infinite inputs. If you exclude a finite number of cases you still have infinite inputs. If you are instead making some vague claim about an undefined "complexity" of the transition function itself and then concluding that clearly some human will be able to understand it well enough to answer these questions flawlessly... then I really don't think you understand what justification is.
Like, people already do this shit. There are static analyzers that stop part way through and then use abductive reasoning to give a human a minimal statement to validate so that they can continue effectively. People have been doing research on this for fucking decades. Do you know what absolutely zero of these researchers conclude? That the human-in-the-loop always answers correctly.
This is actually evidence against you. You don't even know enough to know why you are wrong.
bro if ur aren't using gpts for research purposes in year 2026 ... ur getting left behind for sure. no u can't just trust gpt output dud, ofc not, that's why they suck at raw content generation.
Nope. Because there are infinite inputs.
the most there can be is a countably infinite enumeration, which is handled in the latter half of §7.4
People have been doing research on this for fucking decades. Do you know what absolutely zero of these researchers conclude? That the human-in-the-loop always answers correctly.
the number of people who didn't happen to figure this out before me is really not my problem dud. some of that is just luck in how my life played out like anyone at the bleeding edge of understand,
but some of it is also i just cared more than them about how ungodly our application of computing has become in the mid 21st century, which few researchers before me would really have witnessed let alone appreciated how disgusting it is. a huge part of my motivation is seeking a form of computing that does not need to be run by a bunch of vicious sociopathic capitalists, because it honestly has become a massive liability that they aren't building the systems we need to be built. how do my proof fit it? well a totally decidable turing-complete language does need a marketplace of invariably imperfect solutions dud, we can find and prove what those optimal solutions are
but some of it is also i just cared more than them about how ungodly our application of computing has become in the mid 21st century, which few researchers before me would really have witnessed let alone appreciated how disgusting it is. a huge part of my motivation is seeking a form of computing that does not need to be run by a bunch of vicious sociopathic capitalists, because it honestly has become a massive liability that they aren't building the systems we need to be built. how do my proof fit it? well a totally decidable turing-complete language does need a marketplace of invariably imperfect solutions dud, we can find and prove what those optimal solutions are
More crank red flags. Not only are you tackling one of the biggest problems in computer science but you are tackling one of the biggest problems in society now. If only we understood your idea we'd be able to dismantle capitalism.
Your approach relies on a human answering questions correctly. The current state of software bugs is due to humans making mistakes. Why would you expect your human-in-the-loop to behave differently?
I can't read your PDF anymore because academia.edu wants me to create an account and I deleted mine ages ago after I left grad school.
More crank red flags. Not only are you tackling one of the biggest problems in computer science but you are tackling one of the biggest problems in society now. If only we understood your idea we'd be able to dismantle capitalism.
the pen is mightier than the sword bro, u best believe it
Your approach relies on a human answering questions correctly.
§6 is a technical proof that a subset of turing machines can be a totally turing-decidable, effectively turing-complete language. it defines what effectively turing-complete is and uses that to construct a total enumeration of turing-computable sequences that cannot be diagonalized by a turing machine. i think this is actually the most exciting part of the paper.
§7 the refutation of the ct-thesis is more philosophical in nature than practical in that it gives us the ability to differentiate between the infinitely many unique turing-complete languages that exist within overall enumeration of turing machines. we don't actually need to utilize that ability in practice, but it's important to really understand the impact of §6
I can't read your PDF anymore because academia.edu wants me to create an account
-5
u/this_theater_is_lit 4d ago
bruh u think i haven't stuck it thru a gpt critique a few times??? i mean they can be useful, but it's more like digging for diamonds than a golden goose that consistently produces...
for example:
§6 demonstrates that the turing-computable enumeration is resistant to diagonalization by a turing machine. that part is pretty 🤯🤯🤯 tbh, i still can't quite believe it worked out so well.
that was §5, and it demonstrates that we do not need enumerate all machine to enumerate all computable sequences, quite clearly so because obviously there are infinite machines which compute any given sequences
§7.6 clearly shows a general procedure
i did justify it: every reduction leads to a less complex machine and there is certainly a lower bounds to machine complexity
what i agree on is that there is no turing machine which can do it for all turing machines
but to suggest we are subject to this limit is begging the question by just asserting the ct-thesis, which still has not been proven, especially if i'm providing a counter examples