bit
> frightened by infinite game theory I have no intuitive clues in
> such fields.
Do you have some links please? Just to check it and write down few new
key words.
Cheers,
Mirek
> On 01 Sep 2009, at 14:30, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
>
>> The reason why I am puzzle
e any strong opinion about the Axiom of
Choice. Just trying to understand it. May I ask about your opinion?
Mirek
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Hi Mirek,
>
>
> On 01 Sep 2009, at 12:25, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
>
>
>> I am puzzled by one thing. Is the Axiom of dependent choice (D
Hi Bruno,
I am puzzled by one thing. Is the Axiom of dependent choice (DC) assumed
implicitly somewhere here or is it obvious that there is no need for it
(so far)?
Thanks!
mirek
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>
>
> marty a .
>
>
>
>
>
m.a. wrote:
> a towel into the ring.
> I simply don't have the sort of mind that takes to juggling letters,
> numbers and symbols in increasingly fine-grained, complex arrangements.
[...]
Marty,
If I can ask, I'd be really interested what do you think of this
socratic experiment
http://www.garl
Somebody might be interested in ..
PHYSICAL REVIEW E 80, 021912 2009
Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human
consciousness is not biologically feasible
>From the abstract:
Penrose and Hameroff have argued that the conventional models of a
brain fun
> Well, A^B is the set of functions from B to A. By definition of set
> exponentiation.
I'd just like to point out that Bruno in his previous post in the seven
step serii made a small typo
"A^B - the set of all functions from A to B."
It should have been from B to A. The latest post is corr
> 3) compute { } ^ { } and card({ } ^ { })
> If card(A) = n, and card(B) = m. What is
> card(A^B)?
I find it neat to write | {} ^ {} | = | { {} } | = 1 :-)
It's almost like ASCII art. Just wanted to signal that I'm following.
mirek
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You re
Hi Bruno,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Hi Mirek,
>
> Long and perhaps key post.
Thank you a lot for a prompt and long reply. I am digesting it :-)
Just some quick comments.
> There is no shame in being ignorant. Only in staying ignorant :)
I've ordered the dialogue from a second-hand book shop :-)
> Come on Mirek: "Theaetetical" is an adjective I have forged from
> "Theatetus".
> "Theatetus" gives 195.000 results on Google.
> "Theatetus" wiki 4310.
Of course, after all you reference the dialogue Theaetetus in your
papers thus one can easily match the word Theaetetical agains it.
Let me qu
There has been progress in the direction of finding fully universal
quantum Turing machine.
Construction of a universal quantum computer
Antonio A. Lagana, M. A. Lohe, and Lorenz von Smekal
Physical Review A 79, 052322 (2009) (11 pages)
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.79.052322
I'll r
>> I am in a good mood and a bit picky :-) Do you know how many entries
>> google gave me upon entering
>> Theaetetical -marchal -bruno
>
>
> Well 144?
>
> Good way to find my papers on that. The pages refer quickly to this
> list or the FOR list.
I am sorry for the delay, I've just got bac
Hi Bruno,
I am in a good mood and a bit picky :-) Do you know how many entries
google gave me upon entering
Theaetetical -marchal -bruno
Mirek
> for some people I think. It is just unusual.
> theorem and the Theaetetical definitions of knowledge.
--~--~-~--~~~---
Hi Bruno,
I'd like to let you know that I'm following the serie of your letters.
While I have the background you are covering right now, I still enjoy
your insights.
I joined the list like two years ago and from that time I've read most
of your key papers. Honestly, it is not the easiest stuff t
This blog post
http://blog.sigfpe.com/2009/04/faster-than-speeding-photon.html
outlines the basics about the Unruh effect, if there is any.
>From Wikipedia:
The Unruh effect is the prediction that an accelerating observer will
observe black-body radiation where an inertial observer would observe
Günther Greindl wrote:
> Kim,
>
> great post, thanks!
I second that!
cheers,
mirek
> Kim Jones wrote:
>> Let's keep it simple. Schools and universities (globally identifiable as
>> 'the education industry') have traditionally fulfilled the role of
>> fountains of knowledge.
>> .
I'm sorry but I can't resist to paste this short conversation between
Lord Blackadder and his servant Baldrick. Maybe you know this british
blackadder comedy.
>> If you teach: III and III "mean" 3 and 7, then you said nothing,
>> just named them.
>
>
> That was my point. To talk on notat
>> I would certainly like to read the book - I managed a bit the Lille
>> thesis (with my French), but it was hard going and I think I only
>> understood the stuff because we have had many discussions here on the
>> list - so it was easy to "translate". I am not so sure I can manage
>> the
>> h
Goldblatt 1993, Mathematics of Modality
this book is available online:
http://standish.stanford.edu/bin/detail?fileID=458253745
mirek
>> Goldblatt, Mathematics of Modality
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-Modality-Center-Language-Information/dp/1881526240/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1
> My question has perhaps no sense at all. Is there a notion of quantum
> computation done without any measurement?
Quantum lambda calculus by Andre van Tonder does not containt measurement.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0307150v5
>From the abstract, he proves equivalence between his quantum
Hi Bruno,
> I have finished the reading of the paper I mentioned (Deutsch's
> Universal Quantum Turing Machine revisited) and I see they have very
> similar problems, probably better described.
I finished a rather careful reading of that paper (QTM revisited) too,
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0
Thank you for a quick answer! I'll take a look at it, my curiosity
approves additional items on my TODO list :-)
Best,
mirek
> The classical universal
> dovetailer generates easily all the quantum computations, but I find
> hard to just define *one* unitary transformation, without measurement,
Hello Bruno,
>>> I think you are correct, but allowing the observer to be mechanically
>>> described as obeying the wave equation (which solutions obeys to comp),
>>
>> Hmm well if you have a basis, yes; - but "naked" infinite-dimensional
>> Hilbert Space (the "everything" in QM)?
>
>
> You pu
Bruno Marchal in an older post wrote:
>> Also,
>> can you elaborate a bit more on the motivation behind category theory?
>> Why
>> was it invented, and what problems does it solve? What's the relationship
>> between category theory and the idea that all possible universes exists?
>
>
> Tim makes
Hi Bruno!
> I wish you the best to you and to your girlfriend.
Thank you very much. I appreciate your wish.
> offered to you through the windows, like it happened to a friend of
> mine (and she threw the computer with!). I reassure you: I think that
> was exceptional! Presently I am not so lu
Hi Bruno,
yes, I am now a bit busy. Lecturing, seminars,.. wedding planning :-)
I am somewhere in the middle your paper. Regarding the very point of the
described 1-indeterminancy, I have no problem there at all. Anyone who
ever called a fork() unix function (read, cut, duplicate) followed by
Hi Bruno,
> The UDA, in english, can be found here:
> */The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations/*, (Invited Talk SANE 2004).
> Click on that title, or copy the following in your browser:
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
> (if you study it I would sug
> "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 refutab
> Time for the Kleene diagonal argument. Opps, a language L that I dreamt
> of does not exist. I have to relax from the condition that M on E_i
> always return a number in a finite time. Well, what to return if not a
> number ... nothing -> M experiences an infinite loop.
>
> What a world, ok
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Le 20-nov.-07, à 12:14, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
>
>> Bruno Marchal skrev:
>>> To sum up; finite ordinal and finite cardinal coincide. Concerning
>>> infinite "number" there are much ordinals than cardinals. In between
>>> two different infinite cardinal, there will be
>>> 5) describe informally the coffee-bar language, and, choosing an order
>>> on its alphabet, write the first 7 jobs in the lexicographical order.
>>> The alphabet contains all symbols needed in the jobs, including
>>> commas,
>>> parentheses, etc. + some grammatical rules making clear that Z
Hi Bruno and everybody,
>> I
>> hope to send my comments and/or 'OK' sign :-) on Monday.
>
> Take it easy. There is no deadline on the list.
Making a declaration helps me to get things done. Yet I'm late. Whenever
you see such sentences in my posts, you can skip it, they are mostly for
me :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Title: SUMMARY (was: OM = SIGMA_1)
>
> I send to David Nyman (the 06 Nov 2007) a little planning:
>
> 1) Cantor's diagonal
> 2) Does the universal digital machine exist?
> 3) Lobian machines, who and what are they?
> 4) The 1-person and the 3- machine.
> 5) Lobian machine
Russell Standish wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 02:48:35PM +0100, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
>>
>>> If quantum mechanics was done using a real-valued Hilbert space, you
>>> simply don't get wavelike interference patterns.
>> To my knowledge, you don't get i
> Very interesting thesis Mirek. I have download it, and will certainly
> try to dig a bit more on it some week-ends.
Thanks, hopefully you will find something interesting in there.
> I see you don't cite Everett, which indeed is not necessary for the
> practice of quantum computing. But your
> The Shepherdson Sturgis coffee-bar formal definition of computability.
> (A variant by Cutland).
>
>
> Here is a job offer in an (infinite) coffee bar in Platonia.
> (Infinite, just for making things a bit simpler.)
>
> The basic instructions are the following 3 types + 1.
>
>a.
> If quantum mechanics was done using a real-valued Hilbert space, you
> simply don't get wavelike interference patterns.
To my knowledge, you don't get interference patterns for *positive*
real-valued Hilbert space, but for real-valued Hilbert space you do.
Check http://mina4-49.mc2.chalmers.
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 a
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 en
Hi Bruno,
I'm ready. Luckily, it is not long time ago, I've received my university
degree in CS, so it was rather easy to follow :-)
Sincerely,
Mirek
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Le 27-nov.-07, à 17:27, Günther Greindl a écrit :
>
>> Dear Bruno,
>>
>> thanks for your posts! I like them very muc
Hi Bruno,
thank you for posting the solutions. Of course, I solved it by myself
and it was a fine relaxing time to do the paper work trying to be
rigorous, however, your solutions gave me additional insights, nice.
I am on the board for the sequel.
Best,
Mirek
>
> I give the solution of the
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Question to David, and others who could be interested: is the notion
> of enumerable and non enumerable set clear? Can you explain why the set
> of functions from N to N is not enumerable?
>
>
> Let us go slow and deep so that everybody can understand, once and
42 matches
Mail list logo
