I have a question /sci/
Lets say you have a Turing machine's table decided by another Turing machine. If that was the case wouldn't you be able to design a much more fundamental Turing machine that encodes both?
Because a finite stretch of the table designing Turing machine corresponds to the table of the first Turing machine it can be thought of as two (one finite other infinite) tapes perpendicular to each other. Since two tapes are redundant you should be able to reduce this down into one machine.
Next question is how would you be able to computationally design a Turing machine and not fall into this trap?
You would either have to have an infinite regressions of Turing machines, circular loop of Turing machines, or a grand non computationally designed Turing machine that encodes all other Turing machines.
Lets say you have a Turing machine's table decided by another Turing machine. If that was the case wouldn't you be able to design a much more fundamental Turing machine that encodes both?
Because a finite stretch of the table designing Turing machine corresponds to the table of the first Turing machine it can be thought of as two (one finite other infinite) tapes perpendicular to each other. Since two tapes are redundant you should be able to reduce this down into one machine.
Next question is how would you be able to computationally design a Turing machine and not fall into this trap?
You would either have to have an infinite regressions of Turing machines, circular loop of Turing machines, or a grand non computationally designed Turing machine that encodes all other Turing machines.
