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 

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.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to