Le 05-déc.-07, à 23:08, Mirek Dobsicek a écrit :

## Advertising

"But thanks to that crashing, *Church thesis remains consistent*. I would just say "An existence of a universal language is not ruled out". I am ok with you. Consistent (in math) means basically "not rule out". "Formally consistent" means "not formally ruled out", or "not refutable". That is: "Consistent(p") is the same as "~ Provable(~ p)" " ~" = negation like "Provable(p)" is equivalent with "~ Consistent( ~ p)" Some thoughts: Thanks to Godel "completeness" theorem for the first order theory (1930) you can also read consistent(p) by there is a world satisfying p (a world "where" p is true). This relates a syntactical notion (the non existence of a chain of formula derived from the axioms by the use of the inference rules and ending with f) with a semantical: the existence of a mathematical structure satisfying the formula. At least in the frame of many formal classical theories, it is related to the recurrent modal duality: Permitted p <====> ~ Obligatory ~p Obligatory p <====> ~ Permitted ~p Somewhere p <====> ~ Everywhere ~p Everywhere p <====> ~ Somewhere ~p Sometimes p <====> ~ Always ~p Always p <====> ~ Sometimes ~p Like the usual first order quantifiers: (Ax = for all x; Ex = it exists a x) Ex F(x) <====> ~ Ax ~ F(x) Ax F(x) <====> ~ Ex ~F(x) (all cats are ferocious <====> it does not exist a non ferocious cat) And with formal provability we have also: Consistent p <====> ~ provable ~p Provable p <====> ~ consistent ~p But yes, it is by allowing the machine to crash, and actually by allowing it to crash in a *necessarily* not always predictible way, which makes it possible to be universal. In a nutshell: Universality ==> insecurity ====> kicking back reality and then (knowledge of your universality) ==> (knowledge of your relative insecurity) ====> (knowledge of a kicking back reality) ===> anticipating an independent "reality" (knowledge of your universality) = lobianity (this I intend to explain later) Mirek asked also in trhe same post: <<And my last question, consider the profound function f such that f(n) = 1 if there is a sequence of n consecutive fives in the decimal expansion of PI, and f(n) = 0 otherwise Is this an example of a partial computable function?>> Yes. <<Or is this function as such already considered as un-computable function?>> It could be uncomputable on some value, that is, everywhere the function has value 1, you can in principle compute it (just search the sequence: if it exists you will find it because PI is constructive). If the value is zero, it could be that you will be able to know it, but it could be that you will never know it ... * * * Something else: Mirek, Brent, Barry, Tom (and all those inclined to do a bit of math): don't read what is following unless you don't want to find the crashing combinators by yourself. I give the solution for the crashing combinators: it is enough to ... mock a mockingbird. Raymond Smullyan calls "mocking bird" a combinator M such that Mx = xx. It is a sort of diagonalisor or duplicator. Now if you apply M on itself, M, that is if you evaluate MM, this matches the left of equation Mx = xx, so MM gives MM gives MM gives MM gives MM ... (crashing!). But does M exists? If you recall well, we know only the existence of K and S, and their descendants: like KK, KS, S(KS), SK(KS)(S(KK)), ... (Recall we don't write any left parenthesis, but something like SK(KS)(S(KK)) really abbreviate the result of applying (SK) to (KS) i.e. ((SK)(KS)) on (S(KK)), i.e. (((SK)(KS))(S(KK))). each combinator can be thought as a function of one variable (itself varying on the combinators). We search a combinator playing the role of M (defined by its behavior Mx = xx). We have only K, S, and their combinations. And we have the two axioms giving the behavior of K and S. Kxy = x K axiom and Sxyz = xz(yz) S axiom Explanation. You can see K as a projector sending (xy) on x, for any y. (imo it is the *subjective* entity per excellence, in particular K discards or eliminate informations like projection does. Church will not allow K or any eliminators in its main systems). Functionally K is Lx Ly . x The variable y is abstracted in some irrelevant way. We want Mx = xx. But xx does not match either x or xz(yz), so that we could use the axioms above directly. But imagine we dispose of the subroutine combinators I such that Ix = x. The identity combinators. Then Mx = xx = Ix(Ix), and this does match xz(yz), so that Ix(Ix) is really SIIx (in Sxyz = xz(yz), so SIIx = Ix(Ix) = xx. So SII can play the role of M, it behaves like M. We could define M by SII. Let us verify MM = SII(SII) does crash the system: SII(SII) = I(SII)(I(SII)) = SII(SII) = I(SII)(I(SII)) = SII(SII) = I(SII)(I(SII)) = SII(SII) = I(SII)(I(SII)) = SII(SII) = ... (crashing). Now we have to still find an identity combinator I such that Ix = x. Now x does match the right of the first axiom Kxy = x. Except that K on x wait for a second argument. So let us give to it a second argument such that we get something matching the second (S) axiom: x = Kx(Kx) = SKKx So SKK does the job. So we can take I = SKK. So M = SII = S(SKK)(SKK) and a crashing expression, sometimes called INFINITY is given by MM = SII(SII) = S(SKK)(SKK)(S(SKK)(SKK)) So, a solution was S(SKK)(SKK)(S(SKK)(SKK)) Remark: Note that an existential quantification "ExP(x)" is a sort of projection too. Eventually, the lobian machine observation-act-decision is just that: projection by elimination of worlds (elimination of accessibility of possibilities, a bit like when you get married, of get a job, etc ....). Bruno 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---