Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

> On 26 Mar 2020, at 10:23, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 4:02:18 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 4:57:41 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > With Mechanism, a priori, nature does not compute at all, but emerge from a >

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

> On 26 Mar 2020, at 10:02, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 4:57:41 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > With Mechanism, a priori, nature does not compute at all, but emerge from a > non computable sum on all computations (in the relative way). This must be >

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 4:02:18 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 4:57:41 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> >> With Mechanism, a priori, nature does not compute at all, but emerge from >> a non computable sum on all computations (in the relative

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 4:57:41 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > With Mechanism, a priori, nature does not compute at all, but emerge from > a non computable sum on all computations (in the relative way). This must > be “observable” when we look below our substitution level. That

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

> On 21 Mar 2020, at 23:57, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 3/21/2020 9:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> With mechanism, we have to get rid of the infinite for the ontological >> assumption, although a potential infinite remains necessary at the >> semantical

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

> On 21 Mar 2020, at 17:04, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > The paper brought up by someone on > http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/03/unpredictability-undecidability-and.html > > > > > Computability and

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

On 3/21/2020 9:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: With mechanism, we have to get rid of the infinite for the ontological assumption, although a potential infinite remains necessary at the semantical level. We believe only in finite things, like 0, s0, ss0, sss0, 0, ..;, but we know that in

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

On 3/21/2020 2:35 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: Gregory Chaitin's /The Limits of Reason/ http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/The_Limits_of_Reason_Chaitin_2006.pdf shows math as a jungle only small, isolated pockets of which are ever explored. That humans may feel that they need :proofs" maybe

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

> On 20 Mar 2020, at 20:10, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 11:48:00 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 7:13:10 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 9:54:58 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

g/wiki/Futures_and_promises> > > (in this case a promise of an infinite phenomenon that may or may not be > realized). I doubt that there are actual infinities in nature, but there are indispensable infinities for studying the finite realms, and the first person experience is alread

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

*Computability and Complexity of Unconventional Computing Devices* Hajo Broersma, Susan Stepney, Goran Wendin (Submitted on 9 Feb 2017 (v1), last revised 23 Mar 2017 (this version, v2)) https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.02980 We discuss some claims that certain UCOMP devices can perform

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

The paper brought up by someone on http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/03/unpredictability-undecidability-and.html *Computability and Physical Theories* Robert Geroch, James B. Hartle arXiv:1806.09237 "We suggest that [a theory having measurable numbers that *are not computable*] should be

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

> On 20 Mar 2020, at 14:56, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Friday, March 20, 2020 at 4:03:36 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 19 Mar 2020, at 20:05, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 9:34:36 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 18 Mar 2020,

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

Todd Brun found [ https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0209061v1.pdf ] that P = NP is true for closed timelike curves. This is a short, readable and decent paper. The extension to all PSPACE and undecidable propositions is of course difficult to prove explicitly. However, a spacetime that permits CTCs

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

Gregory Chaitin's *The Limits of Reason* http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/The_Limits_of_Reason_Chaitin_2006.pdf shows math as a jungle only small, isolated pockets of which are ever explored. That humans may feel that they need :proofs" maybe on a few pages long is merely an unfounded

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 11:48:00 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 7:13:10 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 9:54:58 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 18 Mar 2020, at 14:42, Lawrence Crowell >>>

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

On Friday, March 20, 2020 at 4:03:36 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 19 Mar 2020, at 20:05, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 9:34:36 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 18 Mar 2020, at 11:38, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> It is a contradiction

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

e to solve without using some high > cardinal, and nothing prevented this to be necessary. For some such problem, > some case of need of high infinities can be shown, like with the Goodstein > sequences, or with some principle in descriptive set theory. > > Now, in (serious)

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

> On 19 Mar 2020, at 20:05, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 9:34:36 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 18 Mar 2020, at 11:38, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> It is a contradiction for a physicist to say, literally, >> >> nothing real is

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 7:13:10 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > > On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 9:54:58 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 18 Mar 2020, at 14:42, Lawrence Crowell >> wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 4:13:36 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 6:57:19 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 8:52:30 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 7:46:10 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> >>> On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 12:47:56 PM UTC-5,

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

his to be necessary. For some such > problem, some case of need of high infinities can be shown, like with the > Goodstein sequences, or with some principle in descriptive set theory. > > Now, in (serious) theology, we can expect more easily those higher > infinities to p^lay a role, even in

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 8:52:30 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 7:46:10 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 12:47:56 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 8:42:19 AM UTC-5,

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 9:34:36 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 18 Mar 2020, at 11:38, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > It is a contradiction for a physicist to say, literally, > > *nothing real is infinite* > > >

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

f need of high infinities can be shown, like with the Goodstein sequences, or with some principle in descriptive set theory. Now, in (serious) theology, we can expect more easily those higher infinities to p^lay a role, even in machine theology. If a machine can think, a machine can think

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

sics. Computations > with Cantor's aleph hierarchy of transfinite numbers seems pretty far removed > from anything really physical. > > LC > > On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 4:41:09 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > Towards a Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computati

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 8:52:30 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 7:46:10 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 12:47:56 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 8:42:19 AM UTC-5,

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 7:46:10 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 12:47:56 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 8:42:19 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> >>> On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 4:13:36 AM UTC-5,

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 12:47:56 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 8:42:19 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 4:13:36 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 17 Mar 2020, at 16:14, Lawrence Crowell >>> wrote:

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 8:42:19 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 4:13:36 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 17 Mar 2020, at 16:14, Lawrence Crowell >> wrote: >> >> I pretty seriously doubt these things will enter into physics. >>

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

algebra extended to infinite dimensions with a kernel. This does not though mean physics predicts the measurement of infinite quantities A Hilbert space may have an infinite number of states, but that does not mean we expect to measure a quantum state with N → ∞. LC > > > LC >

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

ical. > > LC > > On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 4:41:09 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> *Towards a Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations* >> https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6599 >> Merlin Carl >> >> *We consider the question whether there is a

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

gt; On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 4:41:09 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > Towards a Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations > https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6599 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6599> > Merlin Carl > > We consider the question whether there is an infinitar

Re: A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

I pretty seriously doubt these things will enter into physics. Computations with Cantor's aleph hierarchy of transfinite numbers seems pretty far removed from anything really physical. LC On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 4:41:09 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > *Towards a Church-Turi

A Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations

*Towards a Church-Turing-Thesis for Infinitary Computations* https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6599 Merlin Carl *We consider the question whether there is an infinitary analogue of the Church-Turing-thesis. To this end, we argue that there is an intuitive notion of transfinite computability and build

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

gt; >>> >>>> >>> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 3:22:04 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 1:16 AM > wrote: >

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

son wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 1:16 AM wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> I've been looking at the Wiki article on this topic. I fi

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

>>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> I've been looking at the Wiki article on this topic. I find that I >>> >>>>> really don't understand what it is, or why it's important. Maybe a >>> >>>>> few >>> >>>>>

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

ote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 1:16 AM wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> I've been looking at the Wiki article on this topic. I find

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

> On 27 Aug 2018, at 20:18, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, August 24, 2018 at 3:22:39 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 24 Aug 2018, at 00:53, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 5:55:33 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >>

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

g 21, 2018 at 1:16 AM > wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I've been looking at the Wiki article on this topic. I find that I >> >>>>> really don't understand what it is, or why it's important. Maybe a few >> >>>>> succinc

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

On Friday, August 24, 2018 at 3:22:39 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 24 Aug 2018, at 00:53, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 5:55:33 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 3:28:13 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> Why

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

the Wiki article on this topic. I find that I >> >>>>> really don't understand what it is, or why it's important. Maybe a >> few >> >>>>> succinct words from the usual suspects can be of help. TIA. >> >>>>> >> >

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

>>> > >>>>> I've been looking at the Wiki article on this topic. I find that I > >>>>> really don't understand what it is, or why it's important. Maybe a > few > >>>>> succinct words from the usual

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

portant. Maybe a few >>>>> succinct words from the usual suspects can be of help. TIA. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Bruno provided a great definition and background of the Church-Turing >>>> Thesis. I will try to answ

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

> On 24 Aug 2018, at 00:53, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 5:55:33 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 3:28:13 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > Why don't we all chip in an buy Alan a computer so he can look stuff up on >

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 08:47:12AM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 8/22/2018 7:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > There are also programs for which no one knows if they are computable or > > not.  If you can prove whether or not this function ever completes, you > > will be world famous, and may

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 10:53:05 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 5:55:33 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 3:28:13 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> Why don't we all chip in an buy Alan a computer so he

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 5:55:33 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 3:28:13 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> Why don't we all chip in an buy Alan a computer so he can look stuff up >> on Wikipedia. >> >> Brent >> > > *I will when you have the courtesy to

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 3:28:13 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > Why don't we all chip in an buy Alan a computer so he can look stuff up on > Wikipedia. > > Brent > *I will when you have the courtesy to explain your contradictory statements about the instantaneous, infinite extent of the wf.

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

On 8/22/2018 7:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: There are also programs for which no one knows if they are computable or not.  If you can prove whether or not this function ever completes, you will be world famous, and may even earn a million dollars (though I think the prize has been retracted,

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

Why don't we all chip in an buy Alan a computer so he can look stuff up on Wikipedia. Brent On 8/22/2018 5:58 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 8:26 PM, >wrote: >> Yes, the Busy Beaver Function is not computable. We know that:

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

ute always the same class of functions. More on this later. > > Gödel will disbelieve in Church thesis, and miss it, despite proving that > arithmetic emulates all computable functions, but he was not sure he get them > all. Only after reading Turing, will Gödel accept th

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

, 2018 at 1:16 AM wrote: >>> >>>> I've been looking at the Wiki article on this topic. I find that I >>>> really don't understand what it is, or why it's important. Maybe a few >>>> succinct words from the usual suspects can be of help. TIA. >>>&

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

really don't understand what it is, or why it's important. Maybe a few >>> succinct words from the usual suspects can be of help. TIA. >>> >>> >>> >> >> Bruno provided a great definition and background of the Church-Turing >> Thesis. I will tr

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 8:26 PM, wrote: >> >> Yes, the Busy Beaver Function is not computable. We know that: >> >> BB(1) =1 >> BB(2) =6 >> BB(3) =21 >> BB(4) =107 >> > > *>You haven't *written* the function, just its alleged values for > 1,2,3,4. What is the function? * > Starting with a all

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 11:05:15 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 5:43 PM, > > wrote: > > > >> *Can you write a function which is not computable? * > > > Yes, the Busy Beaver Function is not computable. We know that: > > BB(1) =1 > BB(2) =6 > BB(3) =21 > BB(4) =107

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 5:43 PM, wrote: > > *Can you write a function which is not computable? * Yes, the Busy Beaver Function is not computable. We know that: BB(1) =1 BB(2) =6 BB(3) =21 BB(4) =107 But those are the only values we've be able to calculate with certainty, the problem is the

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

cinct >> words from the usual suspects can be of help. TIA. >> >> >> > > Bruno provided a great definition and background of the Church-Turing > Thesis. I will try to answer why it is important and comes up often in our > discussion. > > > The Church-

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

le if and only if it is > computable by any of those formal system. > *Please elaborate. AG * > > Gödel will disbelieve in Church thesis, and miss it, despite proving that > arithmetic emulates all computable functions, but he was not sure he get > them all. Only after readin

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

a great definition and background of the Church-Turing Thesis. I will try to answer why it is important and comes up often in our discussion. The Church-Turing thesis says that anything that is computable is computable by any computer. In other words, there is nothing that the computer in your cell p

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

ble if and only if it is computable by any of those formal system. Gödel will disbelieve in Church thesis, and miss it, despite proving that arithmetic emulates all computable functions, but he was not sure he get them all. Only after reading Turing, will Gödel accept the Church Turing th

Church-Turing Thesis

I've been looking at the Wiki article on this topic. I find that I really don't understand what it is, or why it's important. Maybe a few succinct words from the usual suspects can be of help. TIA. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List"

Re: Will boson-sampling ever disprove the Extended Church-Turing thesis?

On 03 Nov 2014, at 16:02, yanniru wrote: This recent paper may be of interest: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.2199.pdf I wish this can work. Note, though, that the extended Church thesis has few relationships with the usual Church thesis (also called Church-Turing thesis) which

Will boson-sampling ever disprove the Extended Church-Turing thesis?

This recent paper may be of interest: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.2199.pdf -- 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

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

...@googlemail.com Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2012/9/10 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com No program can determine its hardware. This is a consequence of the Church Turing thesis. The particular machine at the lowest level has no bearing

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Why-the-Church-Turing-thesis--tp34348236p34423089.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

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

. This is a consequence of the Church Turing thesis. The particular machine at the lowest level has no bearing (from the program's perspective). If that is true, we can show that CT must be false, because we *can* define a meta-program that has access

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2012/9/10 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com No program can determine its hardware. This is a consequence of the Church Turing thesis. The particular machine at the lowest level has no bearing (from the program's perspective

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2012/9/10 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com No program can determine its hardware. This is a consequence of the Church Turing thesis. The particular machine at the lowest level has

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2012/9/10 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com No program can determine its hardware. This is a consequence of the Church Turing thesis. The particular machine

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

of the Church Turing thesis. The particular machine at the lowest level has no bearing (from the program's perspective). If that is true, we can show that CT must be false, because we *can* define a meta-program that has access to (part of) its own hardware

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

hardware. This is a consequence of the Church Turing thesis. The particular machine at the lowest level has no bearing (from the program's perspective). If that is true, we can show that CT must be false, because we *can* define a meta-program that has access

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

...@googlemail.com No program can determine its hardware. This is a consequence of the Church Turing thesis. The particular machine at the lowest level has no bearing (from the program's perspective). If that is true, we can show that CT must

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

-2 wrote: 2012/9/10 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com No program can determine its hardware. This is a consequence of the Church Turing thesis. The particular machine at the lowest level has no bearing (from the program's perspective

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

No program can determine its hardware. This is a consequence of the Church Turing thesis. The particular machine at the lowest level has no bearing (from the program's perspective). If that is true, we can show that CT must be false, because we *can* define a meta-program that has

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

2012/9/10 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com No program can determine its hardware. This is a consequence of the Church Turing thesis. The particular machine at the lowest level has no bearing (from the program's perspective). If that is true, we can show that CT must

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

On 9/10/2012 11:40 AM, benjayk wrote: No program can determine its hardware. This is a consequence of the Church Turing thesis. The particular machine at the lowest level has no bearing (from the program's perspective). If that is true, we can show that CT must be false, because we *can

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

On 07 Sep 2012, at 12:24, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Aug 2012, at 21:57, benjayk wrote: It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an universal turing machine can compute everything that is intuitively computable, has near universal acceptance among

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

propose to replace it? The Church-Turing thesis plays a similar role in computer science as the fundamental theorem of arithmetic does in number theory. None. There is no one correct model of computations. There are infinite models that express different facets of what computation is. Different turing

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

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

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

of adhering to our simplistic theoretical model of computation as the essence of what computation means. What model do you propose to replace it? The Church-Turing thesis plays a similar role in computer science as the fundamental theorem of arithmetic does in number theory. None

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

On 28 Aug 2012, at 21:57, benjayk wrote: It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an universal turing machine can compute everything that is intuitively computable, has near universal acceptance among computer scientists. Yes indeed. I think there are two strong

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Aug 2012, at 21:57, benjayk wrote: It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an universal turing machine can compute everything that is intuitively computable, has near universal acceptance among computer scientists. Yes indeed. I

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:47 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an universal

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

On 9/7/2012 6:24 AM, benjayk wrote: Why are two machines that can be used to emlate each other regarded to be equivalent? In my view, there is a big difference between computing the same and being able to emulate each other. Most importantly, emulation only makes sense relative to another

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an universal turing machine can compute everything that is intuitively computable, has near universal acceptance among computer

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:47 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an universal turing machine can compute

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an universal turing machine can compute everything that is intuitively computable, has near universal acceptance among computer scientists. I really

Physical Church-Turing thesis and QM

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.1612v1.pdf Any comments? Ronald -- 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

Re: Physical Church-Turing thesis and QM

Hi Ronald, -Original Message- From: ronaldheld Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 7:15 AM To: Everything List Subject: Physical Church-Turing thesis and QM http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.1612v1.pdf Any comments? Ronald *** A very cool

Re: Physical Church-Turing thesis and QM

I will take a look asap. At first sight the authors do not use the David Deutsch physical Church-Turing thesis. OK? Bruno On 09 Feb 2011, at 13:15, ronaldheld wrote: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.1612v1.pdf Any comments? Ronald -- You

Re: church-turing thesis

) proofs (with oracle, ...). Thanks for the link Mirek, Bruno On 13 May 2010, at 00:36, Miroslav Dobsicek wrote: A link for those who like to wrap their brain around prospects of proving Church-Turing thesis. http://www.logicmatters.net/resources/pdfs/KreiselSqueezing.pdf Mirek -- You

church-turing thesis

A link for those who like to wrap their brain around prospects of proving Church-Turing thesis. http://www.logicmatters.net/resources/pdfs/KreiselSqueezing.pdf Mirek -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send

realism vs. Church-Turing Thesis

(also called the Church Turing Thesis, or the Post Law, etc.) i.e. all universal machine are equivalent with respect to their simulation abilities (making abstraction of the duration of those simulation). 3) [skipped] Couple of questions that arise from reading Hartley Rogers's book. Why stop