On 8/24/2019 1:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
That seems more like the arithmetical explanation of the quantum
indeterminacy. The thermodynamics would be more related to some
identification of the length of a finite computation and its code.
A short code leading to a long
onstant also qualify as a compact description of the
>> universal dovetailing (though being a single real number, rather than a set
>> of rational complex points)?
>>
>>
>> It does not. In fact Chaitin’s set (or “real number”) is not creative
>> (Turing unive
in's constant also qualify as a compact description of the
>> universal dovetailing (though being a single real number, rather than a set
>> of rational complex points)?
>
> It does not. In fact Chaitin’s set (or “real number”) is not creative (Turing
> universal) but
On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 5:17 AM Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 16 Aug 2019, at 19:06, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> Would Chaitin's constant also qualify as a compact description of the
> universal dovetailing (though being a single real number, rather than a set
> of ratio
> On 19 Aug 2019, at 03:25, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 12:17:38PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> You cannot identify a computation and a representation of that computation.
>> So
>> the answer is no: the blockhead or the infinite look-up table does not
>> process
On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 12:17:38PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> You cannot identify a computation and a representation of that computation. So
> the answer is no: the blockhead or the infinite look-up table does not process
> a computation.
That is incorrect. Lookup tables _are_ computations,
t;The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics" Bruno writes
>>
>> "The universal dovetailing can be seen as the proofs of all true Sigma_1
>> propositions there exists x,y,z such that P_x(y) = z, with some sequences of
>> such propositions mimicking
On Friday, August 16, 2019 at 6:31:31 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:06:32PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the background and explanation. Is it the case then that any
> > undecidable (creative?) set is a compact description of
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 6:31 PM Russell Standish
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:06:32PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the background and explanation. Is it the case then that any
> > undecidable (creative?) set is a compact description of universal
>
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:06:32PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> Thanks for the background and explanation. Is it the case then that any
> undecidable (creative?) set is a compact description of universal
> dovetailing?
> Would Chaitin's constant also qualify as a comp
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:02 AM Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 12 Aug 2019, at 23:36, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> In "The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics" Bruno writes
>
> "The universal dovetailing can be seen as the proofs of all true Sigma_1
> propositi
> On 12 Aug 2019, at 23:36, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> In "The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics" Bruno writes
>
> "The universal dovetailing can be seen as the proofs of all true Sigma_1
> propositions there exists x,y,z such that P_x(y) = z, with some
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 02:41:09AM -0700, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> If only there were a dovetailer to multiplex all one's duties. :)
They made a movie about that, starring Tom Hanks IIRC. Can't tremeber
the title, though...
--
vening or tomorrow. (Same for possible other posts),
>
> Best,
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> On 12 Aug 2019, at 23:36, Jason Resch >
> wrote:
>
> In "The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics" Bruno writes
>
> "The universal dovetailing can b
Physics" Bruno writes
>
> "The universal dovetailing can be seen as the proofs of all true Sigma_1
> propositions there exists x,y,z such that P_x(y) = z, with some sequences of
> such propositions mimicking the infinite failing or proving some false
> Sigma_1 propositions.
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 4:36 PM Jason Resch wrote:
> In "The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics" Bruno writes
>
> "The universal dovetailing can be seen as the proofs of all true Sigma_1
> propositions there exists x,y,z such that P_x(y) = z, with some seque
In "The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics" Bruno writes
"The universal dovetailing can be seen as the proofs of all true Sigma_1
propositions there exists x,y,z such that P_x(y) = z, with some sequences
of such propositions mimicking the infinite failing or proving som
I was unaware of this. Seems like it's a crucial part of Bruno's
work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dovetailing_%28computer_science%29
Trying to understand the concept here.
Suppose there are infinitely many instructions of two programs. One
way to run that program is to start putting green
18 matches
Mail list logo
