Le 13-août-07, à 13:29, Kim Jones a écrit :
> where he appears to serve the option of being machine or some other
> order of being. I must confess that I still don't understand the
> ontology of angels as opposed to machines but I'm sure his reply
> contains the reason
Don't worry, I will try to explain.
Question to David, and others who could be interested: is the notion
of enumerable and non enumerable set clear? Can you explain why the set
of functions from N to N is not enumerable?
Just say no, and I go back to Cantor, the one who discussed with the
pope about the question of naming infinities (!), and indeed the one
who will discover (or invent) the varieties of infinities.
Do you people know the difference between ordinal and cardinal (I know
some knows 'course). I don't think Church thesis can be grasped
conceptually without the understanding that the class of programmable
functions is closed for the diagonalization procedure. Do everyone
(interested) know how to prove the non enumerability of the subset of N
Let us go slow and deep so that everybody can understand, once and for
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