Re: Yet another contribution to the P-NP question

nnymous109@gmail.com (nnymous109) writes:

I am going to reply here just to give you some general advice.  I don't
have a lot of time, so depending on whether you want to continue or not,
I may re-activate the more detailed thread we were engaged later.

I was talking about the details.  They look clumsy to me.  What you say
below is straightforward and obvious.

>
Could you explain what you mean by clumsy? To be fair, I'd probably also
need to understand what you meant by 'weak' first.

First, please try to keep attribution lines in your replies.  These are
the lines like "nnymous109@gmail.com (nnymous109) writes:" (and their
quoted versions).  That helps a reader (like me!) know who wrote the ">"
and ">>" passages.

Second.  Keep more context -- i.e. don't cut quite so much material.  To
answer your question -- what I mean by clumsy -- I'd have to go up the
thread and remind myself what you wrote and what it was I thought was
clumsy.  That's making me do work that I would not need to do if the
quotes were still in the message I am replying to.  I don't have time to
do that so I can't answer your question.

2) Also, R need not be constructed from a TM or have q_accept or
q_reject in U_R (i.e., in the set it "recurses" over), so P1 and P2 need
only be two properties that a computation cannot both satisfy at the
same time when it is stationary*.

>
OK.  You've lost me.  I thought R (and iteration) was always a TM
configuration transition function.
>
This must be cleared up, because non-computable maps are going to take
you into all kinds of murky waters.

>
Yup, I should have left this out until we started talking specifics, but
in general R need not be a TM configuration transition function. It's
just a bunch of tuples that have some structure and R(s) is some result
you get if you apply the rules prescribed by R.

But we've been talking about specifics all along,  At least that's been
my hope.  I want specifics.  Since it seems I'm wrong about what a
"recursion" is -- to the extent that it might no even be commutable -- I
want specifics even more!  What is the hell is it?  "A bunch of tuples
with some structure" tells me almost nothing about the central object
you are discussing.

Note: being specific does not make what you are talking about any less
general than you'd like.  It just means pinning it down so we both know
what's being talked about -- se we know just how general it really it.
What you call a recursion might be something absurdly general and
extremely abstract, but I still want you to be specific about what it
is.

--
Ben.