I'm making an effort to understand your idea. I haven't read your code nor understood the details of your earlier posts. So when you say "increase the number of generated TMs," that makes no sense to me. Let alone having them converge on a stable value.i would increase the number of generated TM's until i get a stable value for the seventh digit.
yes exactly. and by estimating whether they halt, i can use the data to approximate chaitins omega.f you randomly -- true random or pseudorandom no difference in this argument -- generated a TM, it might or might not halt on various given inputs. It might calculate the square root of 2 or approximate Newtonian gravity in a video game. You are literally generating a random program.
I didn't watch the vid. Numberphile in general is pretty good. Why don't you summarize it.i think this might help.
yes. but this is a perfectly valid way of viewing a turing machine as far as I'm aware.you are generating finite state machines...
yes.and then concluding that a certain percentage of them appear to halt or not within a bounded number of steps.
according to the video, any irrational number can be approximated with a fraction, to the desired degree of accuracy.I didn't watch the vid. Numberphile in general is pretty good. Why don't you summarize it.
No.yes. but this is a perfectly valid way of viewing a turing machine as far as I'm aware.
As you are repeatedly claiming the opposite of an 83 year old well-known result, the burden is on you to prove that you're right and everyone else is wrong.my point is if you can approximate chiatins constant, then nothing is outside computability.
For sure. Which has nothing to do with the claims you are making. In order to approximate a real with a rational, you need to know what real you're approximating. You can't just "approximate" the next bit when you have no idea what that bit is.according to the video, any irrational number can be approximated with a fraction, to the desired degree of accuracy.