Differential Analytic Turing Automata • Discussion 1

Re: R.J. Lipton and K.W. ReganProving Cook’s Theorem

Synchronicity Rules❢

I just started reworking an old exposition of mine on Cook’s Theorem, where I borrowed the Parity Function example from Wilf (1986), Algorithms and Complexity, and translated it into the cactus graph syntax for propositional calculus I developed as an extension of Peirce’s logical graphs.

By way of providing a simple illustration of Cook’s Theorem, namely, that “Propositional Satisfiability is NP-Complete”, I will describe one way to translate finite approximations of turing machines into propositional expressions, using the cactus language syntax for propositional calculus to be described in more detail as we proceed.

This entry was posted in Algorithms, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Computational Complexity, Differential Analytic Turing Automata, Differential Logic, Logic, Logical Graphs, Peirce, Propositional Calculus, Turing Machines and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Differential Analytic Turing Automata • Discussion 1

  1. Poor Richard says:

    I’d love to go for a spin in your marvelous turing machine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.