On 17 May 2015, at 22:26, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, May 17, 2015 at Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> So what? A injection is a function and a function is a machine
that MOVES from one element in a set to another and ASSOCIATES it
with elements of another set. All these things involve change.
> A function is not a machine.
A machine is a collection of parts that performs an action, and so
is a function.
Not in the sense relevant for the discussion. See the point above.
I will give a name to that rhetroical trick, as you have use it quite
often: the opportunist fallacy.
> There are a non enumerbale number of function from N to N, but
only an enumerable number of digital machines.
The set of all subsets of digital machines is non-enumerable. And if
non enumerable stuff, like the Real Numbers, actually exist and you
are allowed to use them then so am I.
The point was just that function and sets are not machine. Even a set
of machines is not a machine, a priori.
>> I assume nothing, I know for a fact that NOBODY knows how to make
a clockwork without using matter and the laws of physics, maybe
someday somebody will figure it out but as of today NOBODY has the
slightest idea of how to do it.
> Turing machine are not material clockwork but purely mathematical
notion.
And that is why NOBODY knows how to make a calculation on a Turing
Machine
Excellent. So you do admit that Turing machine are not physical
object. That's was my only point, in that part of the explanation.
But calculation, computation, by Turing machine, inherit that non-
physicalness.
or on anything else unless they implement their mathematical notions
with matter that obeys the laws of physics. Maybe someday that state
of affairs will change but that's how things are now.
Implementation, calculations, ... are mathematical (indeed: even
arithmetical) notions.
I will probably come back on this.
>>> You can implement Turing machine in Lambda calculus
>>>> No you can not!
>>> Then not only Turing and Church were wrong, as they will both
proves this.
>> Don't tell me show me.
> It is long and technical,
Well then let's make this simple, just use your patented way to make
calculations without using matter or energy or any of the laws of
physics and tell me what the factors of 3*2^916773 +1 and 19249 ×
2^13018586 + 1 are.
Opportunist fallacy.
>> I think you're talking Bullshit but it would be easy to prove me
wrong, just make a Lambda Machine that makes no use of matter that
obeys the laws of physics and make a calculation, any calculation
with it.
> (lambda x x)(lambda x x) = (lambda x x)(lambda x x) = (lambda x x)
(lambda x x) = ... (example of a non stopping computation).
I see static pixels on a LCD screen, I don't see the slightest sign
that any computation has been made.
You don't see the computation, because we never see mathematical
notion, we grasp them, or not.
> That computation is a mathematical object. It can be described as
an infnite sequence of "(lambda x x)(lambda x x)",
I agree, it's a approximate DESCRIPTION of a real calculation. And
the blueprints of a 747 are a approximate DESCRIPTION of an
airplane, but those blueprints don't act like a flying carpet that
will fly to to Tokyo if you sit on them.
Right, but still opportunistic.
All I see is that you try hard to not understand the point. Your
remark are trivial, but fail to explain to me what is your issue.
I can try to imagine some way to explain things to you, but I can also
see that if you want miss the conclusion, even a bot can provide the
non-answers that you provide to me.
>>> if you agree that 2+2=4, and if you use the standard
definition, then you can prove that a tiny part of the standard
model of arithmetic run all computations.
>> The word " run" involves changes in physical quantities like
position and time. And what sort of thing are you running these
calculations on?
> No: "run" is defined mathematically, without any reference to
physics.
Yes, so I guess you retract your previous comment and now realize
that you can't "run all computations" or run any computation at all
without making use of the physical.
?
> You confuse [first iteration]
Enough with the "you confuse" crap! Every post of yours contains a
"you confuse", put a little variety into your phrases.
Don't tell to others what they have to write. I wiill use "you
confuse" each time you do a confusion.
>> The set of all true statements is contained within the set of all
statements, the trick is to separate the true from the false.
> We cannot separate them mechanically, but we can separate them
mathematically,
Wow that is wonderful news! Since you know how to separate truth
from falsehood mathematically you know if Goldbach conjecture is in
the set of all true statements or in the set of all false statements
and thus you have won the argument. Ah but by the way, which is it?
To separate mathematically does not mean to separate effectively.
>You confuse [second iteration]
Enough with the "you confuse" crap! Every post of yours contains a
"you confuse" [2 this time], put a little variety into your phrases.
Don't tell to others what they have to write. I wiill use "you
confuse" each time you do a confusion.
Bruno
John K Clark
--
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/d/optout.
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/d/optout.
