Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2012/9/11 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2012/9/11 benjayk
2012/9/12 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2012/9/11 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Quentin
2012/9/12 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
2012/9/12 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2012/9/11 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2012/9/11 benjayk
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2012/9/10 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
No program can determine its hardware. This is a consequence of the
Church
Turing thesis. The particular machine at the lowest level has no
bearing
(from the program's perspective).
If that is
2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2012/9/10 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
No program can determine its hardware. This is a consequence of the
Church
Turing thesis. The particular machine at the lowest level has no
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2012/9/10 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
No program can determine its hardware. This is a consequence of
the
Church
Turing thesis. The particular machine
2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2012/9/10 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
No program can determine its hardware. This is a consequence
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2012/9/10 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
No program can determine its
2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2012/9/10 benjayk
2012/9/11 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Quentin
No program can determine its hardware. This is a consequence of the
Church
Turing thesis. The particular machine at the lowest level has no
bearing
(from the program's perspective).
If that is true, we can show that CT must be false, because we *can*
define
a meta-program that has
2012/9/10 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
No program can determine its hardware. This is a consequence of the
Church
Turing thesis. The particular machine at the lowest level has no
bearing
(from the program's perspective).
If that is true, we can show that CT must be
On 9/10/2012 11:40 AM, benjayk wrote:
No program can determine its hardware. This is a consequence of the
Church
Turing thesis. The particular machine at the lowest level has no
bearing
(from the program's perspective).
If that is true, we can show that CT must be false, because we *can*
On 07 Sep 2012, at 12:24, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Aug 2012, at 21:57, benjayk wrote:
It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an
universal turing
machine can compute everything that is intuitively computable, has
near
universal acceptance among
I just respond to some parts of your posts, because I'd rather discuss the
main points than get sidetracked with issues that are less fundamental.
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
I admit that for numbers this is not so relevant because number relations
can be quite clearly expressed using numerous
As far as I see, we mostly agree on content.
I just can't make sense of reducing computation to emulability.
For me the intuitive sene of computation is much more rich than this.
But still, as I think about it, we can also create a model of computation
(in the sense of being intuitively
2012/9/8 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
I just respond to some parts of your posts, because I'd rather discuss the
main points than get sidetracked with issues that are less fundamental.
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
I admit that for numbers this is not so relevant because number
On 28 Aug 2012, at 21:57, benjayk wrote:
It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an
universal turing
machine can compute everything that is intuitively computable, has
near
universal acceptance among computer scientists.
Yes indeed. I think there are two strong
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Aug 2012, at 21:57, benjayk wrote:
It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an
universal turing
machine can compute everything that is intuitively computable, has
near
universal acceptance among computer scientists.
Yes indeed. I
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:47 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an universal
On 9/7/2012 6:24 AM, benjayk wrote:
Why are two machines that can be used to emlate each other regarded to be
equivalent?
In my view, there is a big difference between computing the same and being
able to emulate each other. Most importantly, emulation only makes sense
relative to another
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an universal
turing
machine can compute everything that is intuitively computable, has near
universal acceptance among computer
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:47 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an universal
turing
machine can compute
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an universal
turing
machine can compute everything that is intuitively computable, has near
universal acceptance among computer scientists.
I really
24 matches
Mail list logo