Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Yet another contribution to the P-NP question
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 23:42:31 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <877cawhg6g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <85955d539da522cf777ab489101c0e2a@www.rocksolidbbs.com>
	<4b415dd5a91ac648bee8224fc3c28aa19706e06f.camel@gmail.com>
	<a4cacd3261a32cb9a769fbfe6ed1cd15@www.rocksolidbbs.com>
	<87cykqgfax.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<MWqdnZDONIeEjWv7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2024 00:42:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4243e8548b6d655c356cb21489bf59b1";
	logging-data="943379"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19X1vHd350iD8aIbPYal76tD/XbwN/kXP8="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kxUVJBRfDjWeBYrQA9XLPKjuok8=
	sha1:YNJgVKZu5OvCpRLUcrc69Hw+sDc=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.7baf08ff1c7d44fea72b.20240927234231BST.877cawhg6g.fsf@bsb.me.uk
Bytes: 3156

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.

-- 
Ben.