On 01 Feb 2014, at 13:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 5:09:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Jan 2014, at 22:58, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 4:16:12 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 1 February 2014 09:39, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is there any instance in which a computation is employed in which
no
> program or data is input and from which no data is expected as
output?
The UD.
Isn't everything output from the UD?
No, as I understand it, only the appearance of everything. (Comp
answers the question "why is there something rather than nothing"
by "it depends what you mean by something...")
Ok, so then everything is output from the UD plus output from
whatever computater you are saying generates everything that is not
an appearance.
It is misleading to say that the UD output anything, as it is a non
stopping program. It has no output in the common computer science
meaning.
Then what does it actually do?
It generates all programs, petit-à-petit, and all inputs, petit-à-
petit, and it present those inputs to the programs, in such a way that
it emulates all programs, including those who never stop, as we can
purge them in advance.
The UD itself has no input and no output, but it generates all
programs and emulate their executions on all inputs.
Think about a dreaming brain. Your partner in bed is sleepy and make
a dream. there are no input output,
Not with the world outside of your body, but within the dream, the
whole thing is input and output.
Possible. Apparently at the level of neurons, and perhaps below.
You receive dream experiences and you project your participation in
them, just as you would with your body in a world of bodies. In a
dream, you are in a semi-world of perceptions instead.
In a nocturnal dream, OK. With comp when "awake" we are in infinities
of such dreams, and comp explains why this has to interfere
statistically below our common substitution level.
but there is still an experience which can be related to the brain
activity. In that dreams, some entities can have inputs and outputs.
Input and outputs are relative notions. Then a machine without
inoput and output can imitate machines having them.
Imitation is an output.
Imitation, like emulation, is more a process, or a program activity.
It is a sequences or a tree of states. Output are like number, you can
write them, or transforms them into pixels.
It's based on an input. If you have never heard how someone speaks,
you cannot imitate them - because imitation is an output which
requires sensory input.
In our history, but we write books, and we have memories which sum up
well the relevant information.
But in arithmetic you have freely all informations, and this
structured, notably by the presence of "universal numbers". The
universal numbers can only explore a reality that transcend them.
How does the program itself get to be a program without being input?
See genetic algorithms for one example. See genetics for another. A
"blind watchmaker" can make a computer programme, although we can
normally write one a lot more efficiently.
Genetics are absorbing all kinds of inputs and producing outputs.
The blind watchmaker is a theory about evolution, not an example of
a real computation which is known to be without input or output.
It seems to me though, and this is why I posted this thread, that i/
o is taken for granted and has no real explanation of what it is in
mathematical terms.
No mathematical explanation for what input and output are?! They
both come down to binary digits, how mathematical do you want it to
be?
What are the binary digits which define "input"?
Look up any assembly language.
But assembly language must be input into a computer before that.
Yes, that is why we need to postulate one computer, or one turing
universal system. I take arithmetic (the natural numbers + the laws of
addition and multiplication) as everyone knows that.
That very elementary arithmetic is Turing universal is "well known" by
computer scientist.
The arithmetical truth is vastly bigger than the computable
arithmetical truth, but with comp, that computable part plays the key
role in structuring both the computable and the non computable part of
the (arithmetical) truth.
Bruno
Craig
Bruno
The rest of your post seems a lot more sensible and I will leave
those questions for Bruno to agree or disagree, I would also like
to know how numbers can make an effort (as would Xenocrates! If
John will forgive the reference...)
Cool.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
