Re: Yet another contribution to the P-NP question

On 27/09/2024 23:42, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

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.
 

Not a joke, for sure.  Stuff like the integral sign needs explanation.  Paragraph [5] looks like a definition? or is it standard in some branch of computation theory?  I haven't seen it used like that, but wouldn't really know.
When someone turns up from outside the established academic establishment with their own proof it can be hard work deciphering what they're really trying to say - so many private notations to clarify and so on.  Many experts reasonably decide they're unable/unwilling to invest enough time on something very likely to turn out a lost cause.  Anyhow, I hope this thread gets somewhere as it's likely I'll learn something here!
Of course the paper is very very likely wrong, and likely for a common underlying reason for such proof attempts, but the author says as much and asks for assistance rather than insisting they know better than all the experts - so a million miles from the usual class of usenet cranks we typically see.  [PO, WM, AP, Nam/KD, JSH etc... all duffers in the sense of lacking background + ability to express themselves and reason technically, but not recognising this for whatever reasons.  Ok, WM might be in his own category as he supposedly has more background than those others.].
It's funny - this group has had years and years of the likes of PO and his nonsense claims.  It might seem almost like providence that just a couple of days after PO moves on (as it appears he has?) someone should turn up with a new thread containing (hopefully) actual logical argument rather than a succession of PO-non-logical claim after claim with no logic!  Almost like this is what a group like this was originally meant for! :)
Mike.