Re: Yet another contribution to the P-NP question

On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 1:53:28 +0000, Mike Terry wrote:

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.
>

Thank you for taking a look at the document.
You're correct in that the q_accept and q_reject are more like labels.
The reason I persist with calling them symbols is because I am asking us
to think of them as no different from any of q_0 or 0 or 1 except for
where they happen to live on the transition table.
I wrote a reply to Ben Bacarisse above, and I'm hoping that that may
make some of the broad points of my approach clear.