George Levy wrote:

>
>
>Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >Meanwhile, I
> >would like to ask George and the others if they have a good
> >understanding of the present thread, that is on the fact that growing
> >functions has been well defined, that each sequence of such functions
> >are well defined, and each diagonalisation defines quite well a precise
> >programmable growing function (growing faster than the one in the
> >sequence it comes from).
> >Just a tiny effort, and I think we will have all we need to go into the
> >"heart of the matter", and to understand why comp makes our "universe"
> >a godelized one in the Smullyan sense.
> >
> >
>
>To speak only for myself,  I think I have a sufficient understanding of
>the thread. Essentially you have shown that one cannot form a set of all
>numbers/functions because given any set of numbers/functions it is
>always possible, using diagonalization,  to generate new
>numbers/functions: the Plenitude is too large to be a set. This leads to
>a problem with the assumption of the existence of a Universal Dovetailer
>whose purpose is to generate all functions. I hope this summary is 
>accurate.
>
>George

The dovetailer is only supposed to generate all *computable* functions 
though, correct? And the diagonalization of the (countable) set of all 
computable functions would not itself be computable.

Jesse



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to