Re: substitution level

On 12 Jun 2017, at 01:46, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 10:34:44AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: KURTZ S. A., 1983, On the Random Oracle Hypothesis, Information and Control, 57, pp. 40-47. And I raise you with @Article{Chang-etal94, author = {Richard Chang and Benny

Re: substitution level

Thanks both for the references! Best, Telmo. On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 1:46 AM, Russell Standish wrote: > On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 10:34:44AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> KURTZ S. A., 1983, On the Random Oracle Hypothesis, Information and >> Control, 57, pp. 40-47.

Re: substitution level

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 10:34:44AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > KURTZ S. A., 1983, On the Random Oracle Hypothesis, Information and > Control, 57, pp. 40-47. > And I raise you with @Article{Chang-etal94, author = {Richard Chang and Benny Chor and Oded Goldreich and Juris

Re: substitution level

On 09 Jun 2017, at 18:34, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Jun 2017, at 15:52, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Jun 2017, at 16:07, Telmo Menezes

Re: substitution level

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 06 Jun 2017, at 15:52, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 05 Jun 2017, at 16:07, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> >>> I guess you mean that it

Re: substitution level

On 06 Jun 2017, at 15:52, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Jun 2017, at 16:07, Telmo Menezes wrote: I guess you mean that it does not violate Church thesis. Yes. Of course, it can "do" things impossible to do in real

Re: substitution level

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:35 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Besides that Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the play? >> >> >> >> > >> Why so nasty? > > > It's been 152 years. Too soon? I

Re: substitution level

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 05 Jun 2017, at 16:07, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > I guess you mean that it does not violate Church thesis. > > > Yes. > > Of course, it can > > "do" things impossible to do in real time, or without emulating the subject,

Re: substitution level

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 , spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > c​ > onsciousness may be profitable field of learning, or it may stand still > forever, as is surmised. Of course doing experiments with living things, > including ourselves > ​ [...] > ​Not ​

Re: substitution level

. An anti-Xeno sort of thing. -Original Message- From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Mon, Jun 5, 2017 12:35 pm Subject: Re: substitution level On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomen

Re: substitution level

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> ​>​ >> Besides that Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the play? > > ​> ​ > Why so nasty? ​It's been 152 years. Too soon?​ > ​> ​ > All I was saying is that quantum computers are not > ​ ​ > qualitatively

Re: substitution level

On 05 Jun 2017, at 16:07, Telmo Menezes wrote: I guess you mean that it does not violate Church thesis. Yes. Of course, it can "do" things impossible to do in real time, or without emulating the subject, that a classical computer cannot do. For example, it can generate a genuine random

Re: substitution level

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 6:01 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: > >> > >> There is nothing that a quantum >> computer can do that a classical computer cannot do, > > > There are problems a > classical

Re: substitution level

> I guess you mean that it does not violate Church thesis. Yes. > Of course, it can > "do" things impossible to do in real time, or without emulating the subject, > that a classical computer cannot do. For example, it can generate a genuine > random bit. To do emulate this with a non-quantum

Re: substitution level

On 05 Jun 2017, at 04:44, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 11:48:23AM -0400, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote: ​> ​ That is not the same thing. The largest prime number doesn't exist, so ​ ​ there's no

Re: substitution level

On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 11:48:23AM -0400, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Russell Standish > wrote: > > > > ​> ​ > > That is not the same thing. The largest prime number doesn't exist, so > > ​ ​ > > there's no answer to find there, but the halting

Re: substitution level

On 04 Jun 2017, at 03:20, John Clark wrote: Anything that can be done a Turing Machine can do, if it can't be done then a Turing Machine can't do it, and neither can anything else.​ If "can be done" means "can compute or emulate", I am OK. That is basically Church's Thesis. If by "can

Re: substitution level

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: ​> ​ > There is nothing that a quantum > ​ ​ > computer can do that a classical computer cannot do, ​There are problems a ​ classical computer ​ can't solve in polynomial time that a quantum computer can.​ ​> ​ >

Re: substitution level

On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > ​> ​ > That is not the same thing. The largest prime number doesn't exist, so > ​ ​ > there's no answer to find there, but the halting problem always has an > ​ ​ > answer - a program either halts, or it does not. >

Re: substitution level

On 01 Jun 2017, at 19:38, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 May 2017, at 12:44, Telmo Menezes wrote: Creating a new thread to avoid causing decoherence on the other one :) What if the substitution level turns out to be

Re: substitution level

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 1:20 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> > >> Regarding the quantum computer, I understand that it is still a >> classical computer > > > If a Human being like you, or any computer in existence

Re: substitution level

On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 09:20:29PM -0400, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 Russell Standish wrote: > > ​> ​ > > Random oracle computers appear to be faster for some problems in a > > similar way, but don't compute anything a Turing machine can't do. > > ​[...] ​ >

Re: substitution level

On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 Russell Standish wrote: ​> ​ > Random oracle computers appear to be faster for some problems in a > similar way, but don't compute anything a Turing machine can't do. > ​[...] ​ > the set of problems that can be solved is identical ​ That's because

Re: substitution level

On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 07:20:29PM -0400, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 Telmo Menezes wrote: > > ​> ​ > > Regarding the quantum computer, I understand that it is still a > > classical computer > > > ​If a Human being like you, or any computer in existence

Re: substitution level

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 Telmo Menezes wrote: ​> ​ > Regarding the quantum computer, I understand that it is still a > classical computer ​If a Human being like you, or any computer in existence today, had a telephone number and tried to match it up with a name in a

Re: substitution level

On 31 May 2017, at 12:44, Telmo Menezes wrote: Creating a new thread to avoid causing decoherence on the other one :) What if the substitution level turns out to be at a higher level than quantum? E.g. at the level of the neurons and their connections and activations levels? That would