Both Russell and Brent are right (see orig. message below),
but they *cannot* be both right, or can they?
They are right but not enough precise for agreeing!
You should try to restate the paradox in such a precise
way each of you find one of the two different theorems
which are hidden behind
,
*** Forwarded message, originally written by Brent Meeker on 22-Aug-01
***
On 22-Aug-01, Russell Standish wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
I think there is a cheat here. Computable requires that the
function be defined finitely. While
g(n) = f_n(n) + 1
appears to be a
Brent Meeker wrote:
in memory of James,
[...]
==
2. A paradox ?
I will say that a function f is computable if there is
a well defined formal language FL in which I can explained
non ambiguously how to compute f on
On 21-Aug-01, Marchal wrote:
in memory of James,
==
2. A paradox ?
I will say that a function f is computable if there is
a well defined formal language FL in which I can explained
non ambiguously how to compute f
4 matches
Mail list logo
