On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike A.: > > Well, if you're convinced that infinity and the uncomputable are > imaginary things, then you've got a self-consistent view that I can't > directly argue against. But are you really willing to say that > seemingly understandable notions such as the problem of deciding > whether a given Turing machine will eventually halt are nonsense, > simply because we would need infinite time to verify that one doesn't > halt? >
Every thing that you understand is "imaginary", your understanding itself is an image in your mind, which could get there reflecting reality, through limited number of steps (or so physicists keep telling), or could be generated by overly vivid finite imagination. No nonsense, just finite sense. What is this with verification that a machine doesn't halt? One can't do it, so what is the problem? -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
