Hal Ruhl wrote:

>I appreciate the conversation so I will try to build a common reference so 
>each additional step to my model can be built on that base and individually 
>commented on.   As requested these are definitions and terms relevant to my 
>model not necessarily to established mathematics.

You should try to make your model part of established mathematics.
Not for the glory, but for making it comprehensible.


>1a) FAS: A symbol string judge.  It can judge all possible symbol strings 
>either "acceptable" or "not acceptable".
>
>1b) My FAS contains a single symbol string that is given to be acceptable 
>called its axiom.

Let us say.


>1c) The axiom contains all the allowed symbols - the alphabet.

Why not put the fridge in the bottle of milk?

Contain in which sense and why ? 


>1d) My FAS contains a set of rules for identifying additional acceptable 
>symbol strings with the axiom as the basis.

If you give us a precise FAS, then give it to us. If you are defining
a collection of FAS, then give us an example.

>1e) My FAS contains the rule that any acceptable string contains the 
>encoded FAS as a prefix.

It looks like your FAS is a self-delimiting UTM. Is that it?

>I believe my FAS meets the requirements to make it a FAS in the accepted 
>sense.

Not yet. Have you try to implement your FAS, or its computational part
in some programming language?

Bruno

Reply via email to