On 13 Aug 2012, at 06:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/12/2012 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let phi_i be an enumeration of the (partial) computable function.
u is universal if phi_u(x, y) = phi_x(y). (x,y) = some number
code for the couple (x, y)
So can y be some number code for a pair (a,b)
On 8/13/2012 7:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The infinite tape is only a rather misleading pedagogical folklore. Example of universal
number are brain, computer, programming language interpreters, etc. Universal pattern
in the game of life are finite pattern. The infinite tape here is the
On 8/12/2012 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let phi_i be an enumeration of the (partial) computable function.
u is universal if phi_u(x, y) = phi_x(y). (x,y) = some number code for the
couple (x, y)
So can y be some number code for a pair (a,b) and b a code for a pair (c,d),...?
Brent
?
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-07, 05:37:56
Subject: Re: God has no name
Hi Stephen,
On 8/6/2012 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] Which is the definition I use. Any one that actually
thinks that God is a person, could be a person
Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-07, 05:37:56
Subject: Re: God has no name
Hi Stephen,
On 8/6/2012 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] Which is the definition I use. Any one that actually
thinks that God is a person, could be a person, or is the
complement (anti) of such, has truly
a cause/effect activity ?
If so, what is the cause agent ?
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
*Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2012-08-07, 05:37:56
*Subject:* Re: God has no name
Hi Stephen,
On 8/6
You live by symbols. You have made up names for everything you see.
Each one becomes a separate entity, identified by its own name. By this
you carve it out of unity. By this you designate its special attributes,
and set it off from other things by emphasizing space surrounding it.
This space
?
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-07, 05:37:56
Subject: Re: God has no name
Hi Stephen,
On 8/6/2012 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] Which is the definition I use. Any one that actually thinks that God is a
person, could
On 07 Aug 2012, at 21:03, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/7/2012 5:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On 8/6/2012 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] Which is the definition I use. Any one that actually
thinks that God is a person, could be a person, or is the
complement (anti) of
Hi Stephen,
On 8/6/2012 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] Which is the definition I use. Any one that actually
thinks that God is a person, could be a person, or is the
complement (anti) of such, has truly not thought through the
implications of such.
[BM
For me, and comp, it is an
On 8/7/2012 5:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On 8/6/2012 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] Which is the definition I use. Any one that actually thinks
that God is a person, could be a person, or is the complement
(anti) of such, has truly not thought through the implications of
On 8/6/2012 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] Which is the definition I use. Any one that actually thinks
that God is a person, could be a person, or is the complement
(anti) of such, has truly not thought through the implications of such.
[BM
For me, and comp, it is an open problem.
[SPK]
On 06.08.2012 19:29 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 8/6/2012 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
...
? Why? It's not complicated! A person must be, at least,
nameable. A person has always has a name.
[BM]
Why?
Because names are necessary for persistent distinguishability. Let
13 matches
Mail list logo
