On 28 May 2015, at 19:18, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> But citing Bruno Marchal as an authority is valid?? If you say
one thing and Wolfram says another I'll put my money on Wolfram.
> Wolfram is not an expert in logic.
And as has been demonstrated many times neither is Bruno Marchal.
By who?
And besides, Wolfram must have hundreds of talented mathematicians
on his payroll. You don't think Wolfram personally coded everything
in Mathematica and wrote everything in Mathworld do you?
A reason more to be skeptical.
> f you search on the net information to contradict anyone, you will
always find it.
Sure, but if somebody finds something as respected as Wolfram
Mathworld that contradicts something Bruno Marchal says then Marchal
is almost certainly wrong;
If you reason like that we waste our time.
Mathworld claims to be the most extensive mathematics resource on
the web and I think that's probably true, especially if you include
Wolfram Alpha.
There are good thing, but clearly, not when it comes to Church-Turing
thesis, which was the point.
> You don't answer the question I asked you: what do you mean by
"real-world computable"?
A computation that can be done in the real world. Couldn't you have
figured that out by yourself?
> A function computable by a physical device?
Obviously, unless you know of some other way to make a computation
in the real world. I don't.
Because you still avoid reading the original definition of Turing and
Church. The Church Turing thesis, which is also Emil Post law (in
cognitive science) is what makes the notion of computation purely
mathematical, and that is the ABC of theoretical computer science. I
know only Deutsch to believe in a physical form of Church thesis. At
least he admits it is another thesis. But he has confused many people
by calling it "Church-Turing principle" as everyone in the filed know
that CT has no relation with physics or any metaphysical real world
notion at all.
You lie on me, but you lie also on the subject. You suffer from a bad
ego problem. may be you should smoke a bit of salvia someday ...
Other post:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> Church's thesis is not related to physics at all
I see. Church's thesis says that any problem in physics can be
calculated on a Turing Machine,
No. Church's thesis say only that intuitively computable is
exhaustively captured by the Lambda Calculus formalism.
a device made of matter that obeys the laws of physics; but Church's
thesis is not related to physics at all.
You did not even read the link provided by Quentin.
Nor Deustch, which is the one who proposed a physical version of
Church-thesis, which is really a thesis in Quantum Mechanics, not in
logic.
As I said, Bruno Marchal is not an expert on logic.
Ah, it is you, the guy who stop at step 3. Like if that was an argument.
I better realize why you did not read the AUDA part, as it needs the
basic in logic, about which you clearly know nothing about. But then
you made the judgment.
I insist for the new bees which might still give you some credit:
Church's thesis relates a human epistemic notion: computability, with
a mathematical notion, being Turing, or Church, or Post, or Markov, or
fortran, or c++, or sigma_1 .... computable. On the left side: an
epistemic notion. On the right side: a mathematical notion (even a
purely arithmetical one). The sentence "the computer (universal
number) u emulates the program P" can be translated in term of pure
nulmber relations. If people insists a little bit, I can explain this
with all details needed. This is quite standard material. I explain
all details in "Conscience et Mécanisme", but was asked to eliminate
this, because it was believed at that time that everyone know this,
but since then, well, as we see, that is not the case.
I guess Wolfram meant "effective" for "real-world", as I saw that
"real-world" can sometimes means effective. Nothing to do with the
physical world, even in Wolfram, which is a bit ambiguous.
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.
