4 ms·

That's an irrelevant strawman. It tells us nothing about how create such a system ... how to pluck it out of the infinity of TMs. It's like saying that bridges

by jibal 7mo ago

That's an irrelevant strawman. It tells us nothing about how create such a system ... how to pluck it out of the infinity of TMs. It's like saying that bridges are necessarily built from atoms and adhere to the laws of physics--that's of no help to engineers trying to build a bridge. And there's also the other side of the GP's point--Turing completeness not necessary for creativity--not by a long shot. (In fact, humans are not Turing complete.)

vidarh 7mo ago
No, twisting ot to be about how to create such a system is the strawman. > Turing completeness not necessary for creativity--not by a long shot. This is by far a more extreme claim than the others in this thread. A system that is not even Turing complete is extremely limited. It's near impossible to construct a system with the ability to loop and branch that isn't Turing complete, for example. >(In fact, humans are not Turing complete.) Humans are at least trivially Turing complete - to be Turing complete, all we need to be able to do is to read and write a tape or simulation of one, and use a lookup table with 6 entries (for the proven minimal (2,3) Turing machine) to choose which steps to follow. Maybe you mean to suggest we exceed it. There is no evidence we can.
- thesz 7mo ago
  > A system that is not even Turing complete is extremely limited. Agda is not Turing-complete, yet it is very useful.
jibal 7mo ago
P.S. everything in the response is wrong ... this person has no idea what it means to be Turing complete. > all we need to be able to do is to read and write a tape or simulation of one An infinite tape. And to be Turing complete we must "simulate" that tape--the tape head is not Turing complete, the whole UTM is. > A system that is not even Turing complete is extremely limited. PDAs are not "extremely limited", and we are more limited than PDAs because of our very finite nature.
- vidarh 7mo ago
  > P.S. everything in the response is wrong ... this person has no idea what it means to be Turing complete. I know very well what it means to be Turing complete. All the evidence so far, on the other hand suggests you don't. > An infinite tape. And to be Turing complete we must "simulate" that tape--the tape head is not Turing complete, the whole UTM is. An IO port is logically equivalent to infinite tape. > PDAs are not "extremely limited", and we are more limited than PDAs because of our very finite nature. You can trivially execute every step in a Turing machine, hence you are Turing equivalent. It is clear you do not understand the subject at even a basic level.
- jibal 7mo ago
  > You can trivially execute every step in a Turing machine, hence you are Turing equivalent. It is clear you do not understand the subject at even a basic level. LOL. Such projection. Humans are provably not Turing Complete because they are guaranteed to halt.

by jibal 7mo ago

vidarh 7mo ago

No, twisting ot to be about how to create such a system is the strawman. > Turing completeness not necessary for creativity--not by a long shot. This is by far a more extreme claim than the others in this thread. A system that is not even Turing complete is extremely limited. It's near impossible to construct a system with the ability to loop and branch that isn't Turing complete, for example. >(In fact, humans are not Turing complete.) Humans are at least trivially Turing complete - to be Turing complete, all we need to be able to do is to read and write a tape or simulation of one, and use a lookup table with 6 entries (for the proven minimal (2,3) Turing machine) to choose which steps to follow. Maybe you mean to suggest we exceed it. There is no evidence we can.

thesz 7mo ago
> A system that is not even Turing complete is extremely limited. Agda is not Turing-complete, yet it is very useful.

jibal 7mo ago

P.S. everything in the response is wrong ... this person has no idea what it means to be Turing complete. > all we need to be able to do is to read and write a tape or simulation of one An infinite tape. And to be Turing complete we must "simulate" that tape--the tape head is not Turing complete, the whole UTM is. > A system that is not even Turing complete is extremely limited. PDAs are not "extremely limited", and we are more limited than PDAs because of our very finite nature.

vidarh 7mo ago
> P.S. everything in the response is wrong ... this person has no idea what it means to be Turing complete. I know very well what it means to be Turing complete. All the evidence so far, on the other hand suggests you don't. > An infinite tape. And to be Turing complete we must "simulate" that tape--the tape head is not Turing complete, the whole UTM is. An IO port is logically equivalent to infinite tape. > PDAs are not "extremely limited", and we are more limited than PDAs because of our very finite nature. You can trivially execute every step in a Turing machine, hence you are Turing equivalent. It is clear you do not understand the subject at even a basic level.
jibal 7mo ago
> You can trivially execute every step in a Turing machine, hence you are Turing equivalent. It is clear you do not understand the subject at even a basic level. LOL. Such projection. Humans are provably not Turing Complete because they are guaranteed to halt.