On 25 Sep 2015, at 19:47, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
>> I don't want proof of computations, I want
computations!
> If you prove the existence of something in something else,
you have that something,
Euclid proved 2500 years ago that there are infinitely many
primes, so if what you say above is true you must have the 423rd
prime greater than 10^100^100.
Now you equate existence with constructive existence, but that
contradict your acceptance of the excluded middle principle. You have
already agree that we can prove the existence of something without us
being able to show an example. This is also needed to accept the
classical Church-Turing thesis.
So tell me what it is! You can't because to have that example,
that something, it would have to be calculated; and neither you nor
Euclid can do that.
As you said, Euclid proves the existence of infinitely many prime
numbers, so we (the classical mathematicians) knows that there is a
prime bigger than 10^(100^100). No need to be able to give an example
to believe in its existence independently of us.
> indeed a universal machine cannot distinguihs a physical
computation from a non physical one,
I know, and that lack of ability is yet another example of
something a non-physical machine can't do that a physical machine
can. A physical machine, such as myself, has no difficulty
whatsoever in making that distinction.
Then you have magical abilities not shared by any Turing machine,
physical or non physical.
>> I can provide something much much better than a
definition, I can give A EXAMPLE.
> I gave you an example of an immaterial computation too.
Somehow I must have missed that post, but if you did it once you
can do it again,
KKK
K
I gave you another example, but the one above is simpler, and I expect
the same non-sense from you. Please don't confuse the computation with
anything we use to represent and communicate about that computation.
so just use immaterial computation to find the 423rd prime
greater than 10^100^100 and tell me what it is and you have won
this argument. How hard can that be?
Just define what *you* mean by "physical computation" without using
the mathematical notion. You are the one using the term in highly non
standard sense.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
