Le 11-avr.-06, à 00:19, John M a écrit :
> Comp? I always considered it the - so far - best ways > the human mind could invent for reductionist thinking. I am too busy this week to comment this delicate point. I will explain later some basic think in computer science which are needed, not only to get some light on comp in general and the UD (and G), but also to clarify question about Kolmogorov algorithmic complexity (or Solovay, Chaitin one(*)). I hope that I will succeed to open your mind with the idea that comp is not only not reductionist but that comp gives a sort of vaccine against a very vast set of possible reductionism. The price is the realization that we don't know what numbers really are, or what machines are capable of. But I cannot explain this without saying more on the diagonalization procedure. Understanding comp needs some amount of understanding (theoretical) comp...uter science. A+ B. (*) cf Jesse: > I have a vague memory that there was some result showing the > algorithmic > complexity of a string shouldn't depend too strongly on the details of > the > Turing machine--that it would only differ by some constant amount for > any > two different machines, maybe? Does this ring a bell with anyone? http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
