[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> I don't say this to be rude but because you (and Chomsky) claim to be able to interpret the implications of these mathematical results, but I don't think you are doing so correctly.

It's alright- if I'm being naive, I'm being naive.

But- what am I missing? You're saying we're doing it wrong- how? For me the intuition that infinite generative ability flows naturally from unbounded recursion, like an egg from a hen's bottom, is kind of obvious. Is it naive? I guess it's empirical, for me at least.

Also, btw, I was introduced to the idea of language equivalence through Hopcroft and Ullman, so from the point of view of computer science, where it's been very useful, in practical terms. I guess if you're coming from a mathematical or theoretical physics background it might sound a bit silly, but it's allowed us to make a lot of progress, for instance to create a few thousand different architectures and languages... but maybe I shouldn't be bringing that up as progress...

Anyway, I don't know- how would you interpret the observation correctly? Where are we going wrong?