Le 24-mai-07, à 19:48, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh a écrit : > Hi Bruno, > > Thank you for the information. I understand these parts for the others > it seems I need to search in archives of the > list for some keywords that I do not understand. I'm not an old > member.

## Advertising

No problem. You can always ask. A mailing list is done for that. In the worst case where you ask for some explanation which I have already given ten thousand times, I will either provide links, or ... ask you to wait for the ten thousand and one explanation. > I just wanted to say, most of links in > your page lead to nowhere!(Error), It would be nice if you fix them. I should have updated it since a long time. My old software doesn't work since macOS-10, and I'm tired to buy always the same soft. Also I have to remind my password. I was hoping to change my web-page before' goinf to Siena, but June is the exam period and I am not sure I will be able to do that. Sorry. Bruno > > Mohsen Ravanbakhsh > > On 5/23/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi Mohsen, >> >> Le 22-mai-07, à 12:20, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh a écrit : >> >> >> > Hi Bruno, >> > >> > My sixth sens says you're talking about something important :) but I >> > don't get it. >> >> >> Note that it could help me if you could be a little more specific. OK >> I >> see another post of you. >> >> >> >> >> > It could have been of much more interest, if you could elaborate, or >> > provide us with some references for each part of your >> >> >> So you are able to make sense of the fact that >> [LOGIC+ADDITION+MULTIPLICATION] gives already a Universal Turing >> Machine. This is no more astosnishing than the fact that the K and S >> combinators provides already turing-universality, or that the Conway >> Game of Life is already turing universal. >> The advantage of [LOGIC+ADDITION+MULTIPLICATION] is that (universal) >> computability is seen as a particular case of provability. >> >> What is more long to explain in details is that >> [LOGIC+ADDITION+MULTIPLICATION + INDUCTION] is already lobian. But I >> will first look to your other post which title refer to >> incompleteness. >> >> >> >> > argument.(Beginning from the 'OBVIOUS IMPORTANT QUESTION' it >> > becomesvague for me) >> >> >> The key point consists in understanding the difference between >> computability/simulability and provability. I will come back on this, >> but the idea is that, assuming comp, I can simulate Einstein's brain >> exactly, and still not share his beliefs. Similarly the very non >> powerful Little-Robinson-arithmetic can simulate rich theories like >> PEANO or ZF, but cannot prove the theorem of PA or ZF. >> >> For example PA can prove that ZF can prove the consistency of PA, yet, >> PA cannot prove the consistency of PA. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> > > > > -- > > Mohsen Ravanbakhsh, > Sharif University of Technology, > Tehran. > > > 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---