Re: Yet another contribution to the P-NP question

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"?
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!
Basically, I could probably ask questions and get to grips with details like that, but in the end I don't know the whole P / NP field (definitions, basic results/claims etc.) well enough (understatement!) to offer any kind of review of the paper.
Mike.

 [*] I once went to a contemporary art exhibition where the "catalogue"
was a set of "theorems" using real mathematical notations but it made no
sense.  It was fabulous.