Re: Yet another contribution to the P-NP question

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

On 27/09/2024 00:34, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

nnymous109@gmail.com (nnymous109) writes:
 

Also, I did not know this yesterday, but alternatively, you can access
the document directly through the following link:
https://figshare.com/articles/preprint/On_Higher_Order_Recursions_25SEP2024/27106759?file=49414237

I am hoping that this is a joke.  If it is a joke, then I say well done
sir (or madam)[*].
But I fear it is not a joke, in which case I have a problem with the
first line.  If you want two of the states to be symbols (and there are
points later on that confirm that this is not a typo) then you need to
explain why early on.  You are free to define what you want, but a paper
that starts "let 2 < 1" will have the reader wrong-footed from the
start.

>
You mean q_accept and q_reject?  It looks like they are just to represent
the accept and reject states, not tape symbols?  Calling them symbols is
like calling q_0 a symbol, which seems harmless to me - is it just that you
want to call them "labels" or something other than "symbols"?

Later he/she writes

   (Omega U {q_accept, q_reject})*

where * is, presumably, the Kleene closure.  Omega is the set of
non-blank tape symbols of the TMs under discussion so these states are
used to make "strings" with other tape symbols.

I agree that what the states actually are is irrelevant, but that two of
them are later used like this is presumably important.

I don't fully get the notation though - e.g. it seems to me that the TMs
have tape symbols and states, but I don't see any state transition
table!

Right, but that's line 2 and I was starting at line 1!

I thought it might be joke because of the way the author just piles
definition on definition using bizarre notations like integral symbols
but apparently not.

--
Ben.