On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > V. N., > What is inhuman to me, is to claim that the halting problem is no > problem on such a basis: that the statement "Turing machine X does not > halt" only is true of Turing machines that are *provably* non-halting. > And this is the view we are forced into if we abandon the reality of > the uncomputable. >
Why, you can also mark up the remaining territory by "true" and "false", these labels just won't mean anything there. Set up to sets, T and F, place all true things in T, all false things in F, and all unknown things however you like, but don't tell anybody how. Some people like to place all unknown things in F, their call. Mathematically it can be convenient, but really, even of "computable" things you can't really compute that much, so the argument is void for all practical concerns anyway. -- 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
