On 5/29/2012 3:05 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote:

It doesn't take free will to prove that every even number is divisibleby 2. How to prove a statement with a universal quantifier is prettybasic.## Advertising

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Aleksandr Lokshin<aaloks...@gmail.com <mailto:aaloks...@gmail.com>> wrote:<</The notion of "choosing" isn't actually important--if a proof says something like "pick an arbitrary member of the set X, and you will find it obeys Y", this is equivalent to the statement "every member of the set X obeys Y"/>> No, the logical operator "every" contains the free will choice inside of it. I do insist that one cannot consider an infinite set of onjects simultaneously! Instead of so doing one considers an arbitraryly chosen object. It is a very specific mathematical operation . By using operator "every" we construct a formalism which hides the essens of matter - the using of a free will choice. On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:30 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 5/29/2012 10:52 AMOne cannot, John Clark wrote:On Sun, May 27, 2012 Aleksandr Lokshin <aaloks...@gmail.com <mailto:aaloks...@gmail.com>> wrote: > All main mathematical notions ( such as infinity, variable, integer number) implicitlydepend on the notion of free will.Because nobody can explain what the ASCII string "free will" means the above statement is of no value. > A new approach to the Alan Turing problem (how to distinguish a person from an android) is also proposed ; this approach is based on the idea that an android cannot generate the notion of an arbitrary object. But "arbitrary" just means picking something for no reason or picking something just because you like it but you like it for no reason; in other words it means random. It's true that a pure Turing machine can not produce randomness, however this limitation can be easily overcome by attaching a very simple and cheap hardware random number generator to it.Or by computing psuedo-random numbers with a sufficiently long period that no one will be able to determine the algorithm. BrentThen the android could be as arbitrary as any arbitrary person, if you think being arbitrary is a virtue that is. John K Clark

`The Universal quantifier is not a bijection between a known`

`function and some unknown function. It is more like a one-to-many`

`mapping. This removes its ability to be considered as definite as`

`required by our notions of proofs. If a person or Marchalian machine`

`cannot definitely some result, that result is by no means proven.`

-- Onward! Stephen "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.