Re: Turing vs math

1999-11-16 Thread hal

Juergen Schmidhuber, [EMAIL PROTECTED], writes:
> All formal proofs of number theory are computable from the axioms
> describable by a few bits. So what about Goedel's theorem? We cannot
> derive it from the axioms. But what does that mean? It just means we
> can add it as an axiom. It just means the proof of Goedel's statement
> requires more bits than those conveyed by the original axioms.
>
> In other words, Goedel used additional information. In many of the UTM's
> universes his theorem will be proven by those willing to do the same.

You can also add the negation of the Goedel statement as an axiom, and
get no contradictions.  It is interesting to consider what the resulting
axiom set expresses.  You tried to capture all the essence of arithmetic
in the original axioms, but when you add not-G you get a consistent formal
system which has describes all the properties of numbers as we know them,
but is somehow "wrong".

Hal




Re: White Rabbits and QM

1999-11-16 Thread Alastair Malcolm

- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> My much hyped paper is now available for review and criticism
> (hopefully constructive). The URLs are
> http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks/docs/ps/occam.ps.gz or
> http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks/docs/occam/ depending on whether
> you like your papers in postscript or HTML.

I think this is generally a very good paper - probably because I agree with
most of what I can understand of it! My comments follow.

<


Re: Turing vs math

1999-11-16 Thread Juergen Schmidhuber

>Or you mean "the Goedelian sentence", i.e. the statement
>constructed from the formal system saying that it will not be proved 
>in the system, in which case you are correct.

I do mean "the Goedelian sentence". Sorry!
Juergen




RE: Re: Flying rabbits and dragons

1999-11-16 Thread NONE

I am in an all-day training session.  I will return to the office on Thursday,
11-18-99.

-- Andrew Lias