Le 12-nov.-06, à 03:43, Colin Geoffrey Hales a écrit :
As I stuff my head with the bird menagerie, and try to see if I need to
breed a new bird, I find that EC is best thought of as a form of
combinatorics (as you thought, Bruno!).
You should use combinators instead of combinatorics
I'll take that as a 'no'.
Meanwhile I have gone far enough that I think I want to take it elsewhere
and publish something. I'll find a local logician and infect them with
EC/lambda calc. It's oing to look basically the same:
(()()()())
etc
There is no end product computation. The act of
As I stuff my head with the bird menagerie, and try to see if I need to
breed a new bird, I find that EC is best thought of as a form of
combinatorics (as you thought, Bruno!).
Is there anyone out there who has any intuitions as to which bird(s) would
correspond to 'coherence' or 'symmetry
Le 10-nov.-06, à 05:53, Colin Geoffrey Hales a écrit :
The brackets I have used to date are not the brackets of the lambda
calculus. I think physically, not symbolically. I find the jargon
really
hard to relate to.
I thought you were referring to Alonzo Church's original book on
lambda
Le 10-nov.-06, ࠰5:53, Colin Geoffrey Hales a 飲it :
The brackets I have used to date are not the brackets of the lambda
calculus. I think physically, not symbolically. I find the jargon
really
hard to relate to.
I thought you were referring to Alonzo Church's original book on
lambda
snip
Are you saying that you disallow lambda expression having the shape:
(LAMBDA (X) F)
with no occurrence of X in F?
The brackets I have used to date are not the brackets of the lambda
calculus. I think physically, not symbolically. I find the jargon really
hard to relate to.
Put
Le 07-nov.-06, à 06:19, Colin Geoffrey Hales a écrit :
Having got deeper into the analysis, what I have found is that EC is
literally an instantated lamba calculus by Church.
Good idea, but note that it is a very general statement. Many theories
can be instanciated in lamabda calculus.
Hi,
Having got deeper into the analysis, what I have found is that EC is
literally an instantated lamba calculus by Church. So all I have to do is
roughly axiomatise EC in Church's form and I'm done. So that is what I am
doing. I'll be directly referring to church's original work. Once that is
TEST: resend...some sort of bounce thing happened with the mailer
Hi,
Having got deeper into the analysis, what I have found is that EC is
literally an instantated lamba calculus by Church. So all I have to do is
roughly axiomatise EC in Church's form and I'm done. So that is what I am
doing.
===
STEP 7: Something from nothing. (the big bang)
U(.) = (*) from previous STEP.
= (()()()()()()()()()()...()()()()())
There is some need to deal with this issue because it leads to the
mathematical drive of EC that we inside see as the
Colin Hales wrote:
When you are in EC it looks like more relative speed (compared your local EC
string), time goes slower. Traveling faster than the speed of light is
meaningless EC can't 'construct/refresh' you beyond the rate it's () operate
at. There's nothing to travel in anything and
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
3) The current state of the proof is 'now' the thin slice of the present.
Just a couple of questions for the moment Colin, until I've a little
more time. Actually, that's precisely what it's about - 'time'. Just
how thin is this slice of yours? And is it important
Colin Hales wrote:
3) The current state of the proof is 'now'
the thin slice of the
present.
Just a couple of questions for the moment Colin,
until I've a little
more time. Actually, that's precisely what it's
about - 'time'. Just
how thin is this slice of yours? And is
===
STEP 6: Initial state, 'axioms'
(*)
The initial state of the EC axiom set is 1 huge collection of phase related
fluctuations.
The (*) means that all the axioms are coincident - there is no 'space' yet.
No concept of place. The number of spatial
14 matches
Mail list logo
