On 8/16/2012 12:32 PM, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com<mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote:I have to say it again, it doesn't mean that a particular one cannot solve thehalting problem for a particular algorithm.And unless you prove that that particular algorithm is undecidableIf it's undecidable that means its either false or true but contains no proof, that isto say it's truth can't be demonstrated in a finite number of steps. And Turing provedthat there are a infinite number of undecidable statements that you can not know areundecidable.> then it is still possible to find another algorithm that could decide on the halting of that algorithm.There might be such a algorithm for a given problem or there might not be, and if thereisn't you can't know there isn't so you will keep looking for one forever and you willkeep failing forever.>>If you see it stop then obviously you know that it stopped but if its still going then you know nothing, maybe it will eventually stop and maybe it will not, you need to keep watching and you might need to keep watching forever. > It's obviously not true for *a lot* of algorithm....Yes, but it is also true for *a lot* of algorithms. According to Godel some statementsare true but un-provable, if The Goldbach Conjecture is one of these (and if its notthere are a infinite number of similar statements that are) it means that it's true sowe'll never find a every even integer greater than 4 that is not the sum of primesgreater than 2 to prove it wrong, and it means we'll never find a proof to show it'scorrect. For a few years after Godel made his discovery it was hoped that we could atleast identify statements that were either false or true but had no proof. If we coulddo that then we would know we were wasting our time looking for a proof and we couldmove on to other things, but in 1935 Turing proved that sometimes even that was impossible.

`Are there any explicitly known arithmetic propositions which must be true or false under`

`Peanao's axioms, but which are known to be unprovable? If we construct a Godel sentence,`

`which corresponds to "This sentence is unprovable.", in Godel encoding it must be an`

`arithmetic proposition. I'm just curious as to what such an arithmetic proposition looks`

`like.`

Brent

If Goldbach is un-provable we will never know it's un-provable, we know that suchstatements exist, a infinite number of them, but we don't know what they are. A billionyears from now, whatever hyper intelligent entities we will have evolved into will stillbe deep in thought looking, unsuccessfully, for a proof that Goldbach is correct andstill be grinding away at numbers looking, unsuccessfully, for a counterexample to proveit wrong.John K Clark --You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "EverythingList" 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.

-- 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.