Le 11-févr.-08, à 17:58, Mirek Dobsicek a écrit :
But thanks to that crashing, *Church thesis remains consistent*. I
would just say An existence of a universal language is not ruled
out.
I am ok with you. Consistent (in math) means basically not rule out.
Formally consistent means not
But thanks to that crashing, *Church thesis remains consistent*. I
would just say An existence of a universal language is not ruled out.
I am ok with you. Consistent (in math) means basically not rule out.
Formally consistent means not formally ruled out, or not refutable.
That is:
Bruno, thanx.
You play loose with 'context': not observed with the baby's diapers,
but observed with K and S - (what I didnot specify at all, in the
contrary: I spoke about (any) symbol in the sentence what fou failed
to misunderstand rightly. )
You seem to comfortably refer to 'matter' (vs
John,
Le 06-févr.-08, à 23:56, John Mikes a écrit :
Bruno, here is my out of order and off topic remark.
We are here in theoretical theorizing by theory-laden theoretic ways.
It is ALL the product of a mental exercise. Even a Loebian kick in
the ass can be
Le 05-déc.-07, à 23:08, Mirek Dobsicek a écrit :
But thanks to that crashing, *Church thesis remains consistent*. I
would just say An existence of a universal language is not ruled out.
I am ok with you. Consistent (in math) means basically not rule out.
Formally consistent means not
Bruno, here is my out of order and off topic remark.
We are here in theoretical theorizing by theory-laden theoretic ways.
It is ALL the product of a mental exercise. Even a Loebian kick in
the ass can be a theoretical halucination.
You wrote:
... - ...
But does 'M
Hi Barry and Mirek, (and Brent, David, ).
Thanks for telling,
New year is good for me. As you know I am a bit of a platonist so time
has no real meaning for me. I told you that this year I'm teaching
Church thesis at my Saturday Course on computer science for a large
(not necessarily
Hi Bruno,
From what you told me, I think you have no problem with Cantor 's
diagonal.
Yep, no problem.
Are you ok with the key post, that is with the two supplementary uses
of the diagonal in the enumerable context?
95% grasped, and for the rest I'm lacking time to do a
sufficient
Seems fine to me too.
Barry
On Dec 12, 2007, at 12:58 PM, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
Hi Bruno,
From what you told me, I think you have no problem with Cantor 's
diagonal.
Yep, no problem.
Are you ok with the key post, that is with the two supplementary uses
of the diagonal in the
Hi Brent, Mirek, David,
From what you told me, I think you have no problem with Cantor 's
diagonal.
Are you ok with the key post, that is with the two supplementary uses
of the diagonal in the enumerable context?
Let me sum up, please consult the preceding posts for details.
1)
Le 07-déc.-07, à 00:22, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 03:37:10PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Thanks Russell.
About the use of asshole I am afraid it is more popular, or vulgar,
than I thought. You are very kind to tell me.
Should I use dumb instead? The idea
Thanks Russell.
About the use of asshole I am afraid it is more popular, or vulgar,
than I thought. You are very kind to tell me.
Should I use dumb instead? The idea consists in not attributing
anything like intuition, intelligence, cleverness, etc. for the
followers of unambiguous
Hello Mirek,
Le 05-déc.-07, à 23:08, Mirek Dobsicek a écrit :
thank you for your post. I read it a couple of times in order to more
or
less grasp it, but it worth it. I have some questions...
Suppose there is a secure universal machine M. The set of expressions
it can compute provide
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 03:37:10PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Thanks Russell.
About the use of asshole I am afraid it is more popular, or vulgar,
than I thought. You are very kind to tell me.
Should I use dumb instead? The idea consists in not attributing
No dumb is the wrong word.
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 03:55:50PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi David, Mirek, Tom, Barry and All,
...
The cardinality of the set of computable functions.
Thanks for this post. I was in the position of trying to explain your
work to someone (actually a son of my mother's cousin) at a
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 11:08:34PM +0100, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
Each expression like that denotes now either a computable function from
N to N, or as we have to expect something else. And we have to expect
they are no computable means to distinguish which U_i represents
functions
Hi Bruno,
thank you for your post. I read it a couple of times in order to more or
less grasp it, but it worth it. I have some questions...
Suppose there is a secure universal machine M. The set of expressions
it can compute provide a secure universal language L. That set is not
only
17 matches
Mail list logo
