[FOM] Simple Turing machines, Universality, Encodings, etc.
joeshipman@aol.com
joeshipman at aol.com
Mon Oct 29 17:40:30 EDT 2007
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith <steven at semeiosis.org>
>
>Speaking of fallacies and not wishing to push my luck either. But it
>seems to me that the very notion of a Principle of Computational
>Equivalence is unwarranted and fallacious, and fortunately falsifiable.
Do you mean falsifiable, or already falsified?
I think Wolfram's PCE is reasonably well-specified, though not
mathematically precise, and as I said in a recent post,
***
PCE doesn't need to be precise to be refutable. All one needs to do to
refute it is produce a process which
i) is simpler to define than Wolfram's "universal" examples
ii) does not obviously fail to be c.e.-complete
iii) is nonetheless provably not c.e.-complete
***
I am not aware that Wolfram's PCE has in fact been refuted; if you know
of no refutation, do you at least have a good argument why it is
probably false?
-- JS
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! -
http://mail.aol.com
More information about the FOM
mailing list