TuringsCousin

Please delete. I have found some large holes in this analysis

Memento A = { E.n } where E is an event and n is the last number in the sequence. Through out the movie each scene expands on E.n The original length of the scene is E.n-1 but the point it is trying to get across is E.n-1+E.n By the end of the movie the length of the last scene is E.1 +E.2...E.n. Another funny thing i realized is that the main actor in memento acts like a computer. He recieves an input and displays an out. The input is the text on his pictures and the output is the action that he performs. His day will contain trying to achieve that event. His accepting inputs and displaying outputs. so we have A = {E.n-i} where n-i is the scene number and at the same time we have outputs which dictate whether the main character can make it to the next scene. Imagine if we had to put this in terms of finite state automata. E.n-i-1---->succeed------->E.n-i E.n-i---------->Denied-------->E.n-i-1 If we assume that if the main character fails he will try the same thing the next day because to progress he has to have a certain outcome of a certain event. We also get to the point of the movie. If the main character did not perform a certain event then we would not know what happens before because there is no event preceding it. infact the event does not exist. Funny thing about the movie is that if it was a finite state automata then all of those events have already happened. This is true because the last event is our acceptance state. We arte backtracking from our acceptance state and we are moving to our starting state. E.n to E.1 One funny thing i noticed is that in memento the lead actor is puts down writing with the success of every event that is how we are able to backtrack successfulyy and nolan engages us. So memento is not a giant finite state machine but the movie itself is a giant finite state transducer. E.n-i-1---->succeed------->E.n-i(N.j) where N.j symbolizes the notes that the lead will write.\ But although this analysis seems interesting it is also flawed in it's respect. We are assuming this only if the lead decicided to does not acknowledge that he has failed to succed in an event thus whiping out his mememory. Imagine if the lead decides to write notes at his failure dictacting the birth of more events and destroying the validity of his current state transducer? For example E.n-i---------->Denied-------->E.n-i-1(N.j) where N.J affects E.n-i but also creating a reality in which he approaches it a different way. Does this make way for the movie to be a non deterministic finite state transducer? Where the parallel states are possibilities what he would have done on failure? For the sake of discussion we are going to assume that he does not acknowledge failure. At the end of the day we have this guy. Memento is a finite state Transducer such that : (S,E,O,I,F) Transition Function : S X (E U e) X E* X S S = is a set of scenes numbered A.1,A.2....A.n where n = number of scenecs E = {succed, Denied} O = {is a set of writing down on pictures where N is the picture and J. is the numbe of things he has written down} I = {A.i}// for analysis any scene can be chosen as long as it follows the chain that is end on A.i+k where k >=i . F = {A.i+k}// the final state should be greater than the stating state. I am writing this at 4 in the morning your feedback would be greatly appreciated.