Re: Can the 'Turing Problem' be deflated?

george wrote:
On Apr 3, 4:08 pm, J Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
The sort of 'machine' you have envisioned on behalf of Turing

Go *** yourself. *I* have not envisioned ***.
YOU are the one who has "envisioned on behalf of Turing."
I actually READ the definition. You just made one up.

I am actually using the definition you spoke about:
"Briefly, because the steps a machine makes are solitary and not
connected through a process, then a machine, including the TM, halts at
each mooted 'step in a process'. Further, if the machine is determined
by the steps, then at each step we have a new, unrelated machine. "
I will repeat the last sentence for you:

"Further, if the machine is determined
by the steps, then at each step we have a new, unrelated machine. "

Further, if the machine is determined
by the steps, then at each step we have a new, unrelated machine. "

Further, if the machine is determined
by the steps, then at each step we have a new, unrelated machine. "

Further, if the machine is determined
by the steps, then at each step we have a new, unrelated machine. "

Further, if the machine is determined
by the steps, then at each step we have a new, unrelated machine. "

Further, if the machine is determined
by the steps, then at each step we have a new, unrelated machine. "





.

Quantcast