In "conscience et mécanisme" I use Lowenheim Skolem theorem to explain
why the first person of PA "see" uncountable things despite the fact
that from the 0 person pov and the 3 person pov there is only countably
many things (for PA).
I explain it through a comics. See the drawings the page "d
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 02-nov.-06, à 17:34, David Nyman a écrit :
>
>
> >
> >
> > Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> >> I don't understand really what you mean by "AUDA is not RITSIAR". AUDA
> >> is just the lobian interview, or if you prefer the complete
> >> mathematical formalization of the UDA rea
It is not a question of existence but of definability.
For example you can define and prove (by Cantor diagonalization) the
existence of uncountable sets in ZF which is a first order theory of
sets.
Now "uncountability" is not an absolute notion (that is the
Lowenheim-Skolem lesson).
Careful: u
uncompoutable numbers, non countable sets etc. don't exist in first
order logic, see here:
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/logsys/low-skol.htm
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Ah the famous Juergen Schmidhuber! :)
>
> Is the universe a computer. Well, if you define 'univer
Marc,
I do not argue with 'your half' of the 'answer' you gave to the conference
announcement of Jürgen Schm , I just ask for the 'other part': what should
we call "a computer"?
'Anything' doing Comp? (meaning: whatever is doing it)?
Will the conference be limited to that technically embryoni
Le 02-nov.-06, à 17:34, David Nyman a écrit :
>
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> I don't understand really what you mean by "AUDA is not RITSIAR". AUDA
>> is just the lobian interview, or if you prefer the complete
>> mathematical formalization of the UDA reasoning. In some sense you can
>> interp
6 matches
Mail list logo
