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 
by diagonalization?

Let us go slow and deep so that everybody can understand, once and for 
all.  OK?



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 

Reply via email to