Re: Can Flibble’s neos-based solution still be Turing Complete?

On 2025-05-26 15:35:28 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/26/2025 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-25 14:42:17 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 5/25/2025 1:18 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-24 16:02:41 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 5/23/2025 9:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

Yes, **Flibble’s neos-based solution can still be Turing Complete as a
whole**, even though it **disallows programs from referencing the
decider**.
 Let’s break this down precisely.

 A more useful application of the term Turing Complete would be that

 ...
 The only useful meaning is what the term actually means. Any other
meaning is harmful.

 Analysis of complex theory of computation problems
is much more effective at the higher levels of
abstraction of higher level languages.
 For example because the x86 language has relative
addressing the underlying model of computation
specified by the x86 language has unlimited memory
thus is Turing complete.

 The generic x86 language does not specify the mapping from addresses
to memory locations. Different x86 processors do it differently. A
particular processor may be able to shift the mapping of a part of
the address space to a previous or next block of a potentially
infinite memory. However, the usual models can pnly map it to a larger
finite memory.
 None of which is irrelevan to my note that the only useful meaning is
what the term actually means.
 

Turing complete cannot possibly make any actual
difference at all as long as the model of computation
has enough memory for the algorithm.

 It doesn't as long as you can compute every function you want to compute.
But if you don't know what you will want then having a Turing complete
system is best you can have.

 The best system is a system that actually exists.
there are far too many errors of false assumptions
in models that are only imagined to exist.

Assusmptions about a hypthetical system cannot be identified as false
because they cannot be compared to reality. It is possible that the
assumptions are found to be inconsisent, in which case we know that
some of the assumtions are false and that the system is not useful.
But we can prove various conseqneces of those assumptions and compare
them to our desiderata to determine whether a real world modes of the
system would be useful and whether it could be implermented in the
real world.
A systems that actually exist can have features that no one has thought
they could have, and as a consequence they may behave in ways that no
one understands. The best way to avoid that is to implement a well
understood theoretical system.
--
Mikko