On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

## Advertising

> > On 12 Jan 2014, at 15:30, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > Bruno: *Those machines are enumerable. There is an enumeration of all of > them: m_0, m_1, m_2, m_3, m_4, ...* > > Richard: We are in close agreement if the digital machines are each a > Calabi-Yau CY Compact Manifold that can be enumerated. > > Bruno: *So, you can fix one universal language, like a base, and identify > each machine with a number. * > > Richard: Agreed presuming that the base is an m_i and the unique universal > language to that machine involves all other machines. > > *Bruno: Each programming language, or computers boolean net, correspond > to some m_i, and are universal m_i, as they can imitate all others machines > (accepting Church thesis).* > > Richard: You seem to be identifying each machine with a programming > language that has the property of imitating all other enumerated machine. > > Is it sheer coincidence that for more than one string theory > consideration, each CY machine relects or perceives (or perhaps it can be > said is conscious of) all other machines. So I conjecture that the CY > machines satisfy the Church Thesis. Can that be proven or falsified? > > > > > > > Wow! Pretty difficult question. To prove this you need not just to > enumerate the objects, but to define how they compute: what they do when > presenting data. What would be a data for a CY machines? Could a CY > machines never stop? What would that mean? can you give me a CY which > generates the Fibonacci numbers? > > Thanks to a work by Rogers, an enumeration of machine m_i is Turing > universal, if each partial computable phi_i is computed by some m_i, and if > the list of the corresponding phi_i obeys the two rules: > > 1) Universal machine existence: there is a u such that phi_u(x, y) = > phi_x(y) (U emulates x, for all x, on any y). > 1) seems almost obvious if each machine perceives all others yet has a unique perception.. > 2) Automated Parametrization: all computable functions with n arguments > (x, y, z, t, ...) can be transformed into a function of n-1 arguments by > some function SMN fixing his argument to some value: > phi_i(x, y, z, t, ...) = phi_SMN(x) (y, z, t, ...). Note that SMN is a > metaprogram: it acts on the indices of the phi_i. > > 2) I do not understand. No wait. I am getting a glimmer. Lets suppose phi_i(x,y,z,t...) were the laws of physics. Ohh, nevermind (delete). Ref for Rogers, please? > If you prove "1)" and "2)" for the CY machines, you are done. > > Of course another way to prove that would be to directly construct one > universal CY machines, emulating for example one universal Turing machine, > or the SK combinators. > > Probably the paper by Schmidhuber on formal strings, that I refer to you > some times ago, should help. > > Bruno > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.