As far as I see, we mostly agree on content. I just can't make sense of reducing computation to emulability. For me the intuitive sene of computation is much more rich than this.
But still, as I think about it, we can also create a model of computation (in the sense of being intuitively computational and being implementable on a computer) where there are computations that can't be emulated by universal turing machine, using "level breaking" languages (which explicitly refer to what is being computed on the base level). I'll write another post on this. benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Why-the-Church-Turing-thesis--tp34348236p34406986.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- 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.
