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