Le 30-mai-06, à 19:13, Tom Caylor wrote :
>
>> From what you've said about dovetailing before, you don't have to have
> just a single sequence in order to dovetail. You can jump among
> multiple sequences. I have yet to understand how you could dovetail on
> something that is not effective. T
Hal Finney wrote:
>Jesse Mazer writes:
> > The dovetailer is only supposed to generate all *computable* functions
> > though, correct? And the diagonalization of the (countable) set of all
> > computable functions would not itself be computable.
>
>The dovetailer I know does not seem relevant to
Le Mercredi 31 Mai 2006 00:21, Hal Finney a écrit :
> The dovetailer I know does not seem relevant to this discussion about
> functions. It generates programs, not functions. For example, it
> generates all 1 bit programs and runs each for one cycle; then generates
> all 2 bit programs and runs
Jesse Mazer writes:
> The dovetailer is only supposed to generate all *computable* functions
> though, correct? And the diagonalization of the (countable) set of all
> computable functions would not itself be computable.
The dovetailer I know does not seem relevant to this discussion about
func
George Levy wrote:
>
>
>Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >Meanwhile, I
> >would like to ask George and the others if they have a good
> >understanding of the present thread, that is on the fact that growing
> >functions has been well defined, that each sequence of such functions
> >are well defined, and
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>Meanwhile, I
>would like to ask George and the others if they have a good
>understanding of the present thread, that is on the fact that growing
>functions has been well defined, that each sequence of such functions
>are well defined, and each diagonalisation defines qui
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >From what you've said about dovetailing before, you don't have to have
> >
> > just a single sequence in order to dovetail. You can jump among
> > multiple sequences. I have yet to understand how you could dovetail on
> > something that is not effective.
>
> I
Hi,
>From what you've said about dovetailing before, you don't have to have
>
> just a single sequence in order to dovetail. You can jump among
> multiple sequences. I have yet to understand how you could dovetail on
> something that is not effective.
I think dovetailing is possible because
Tom Caylor wrote:
> It sounds like the cute theorem says that you can keep dividing up the
> natural numbers like this forever.
>
Oops. I slipped in an actual infinity when I said "forever". Perhaps
I should have said "indefinitely" ;)
Tom
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~--
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> OK. And you are right, I could have done this without mentioning the
> constructive ordinal. But it is worth mentioning it, even at this early
> stages, because they will reappear again and again.
> Note that all those infinite but constructive ordinal are all countable
>
Bruno,
It's been a long holiday weekend here in the US, Bruno,
thank you for your reply, and your patience for my
responce.
Fromconventional math, everything you said was
correct, put to me by a co-list friend as .. should I
offer you a financial reimbursement for your answer:
"1
Le 30-mai-06, à 03:14, Tom Caylor a écrit :
> OK. I see that so far (above) there's no problem. (See below for
> where I still have concern(s).) Here I was taking a fixed N, but G is
> defined as the diagonal, so my comparison is not valid, and so my proof
> that G is infinite for a fixed N
I meant that it makes intuitive sense that you *cannot* sequence
effectively on all computable growing functions.
Tom
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 26-mai-06, à 19:35, Tom Caylor a écrit :
> >
> > Bruno,
> > You are starting to perturb me! I guess that comes with the territory
> > where you're leading us.
>
> You should not worry too much. I confess I am putting your mind in the
> state of mathematicians before the
Rich,
are you familiar with the work of R.D. Laing? He was the illustrious
founder of the "anti-psychiatry" movement in the 60s. One never hears
of him these days. He had all the other thinkers on the hop for quite
a while. Your thoughts represent no interruption whatsoever.
Kim
On 29/0
At the risk of wasting more bandwidth than I alread have I'd like
to apologize for any discomfort I've caused on the list. Sometimes
I feel like a jewish person arguing the reality of the holocaust
to doubters. Such is the hidden record of psychiatry and the power
of its PR machine. Please exc
According to Stathis Papaioannou:
>On the other hand, about 1/3 of people who present with psychotic
>symptoms will have either a complete or a near-complete response
>to medication with minimal side-effects, and it would be tragic if
>they missed out due to anti-psychiatry prejudice or (more comm
e before they develop the full-blown illness, that are useful. The most likely outcome in an untreated floridly psychotic person who has to fend for himself is death.
Stathis Papaioannou
> CC: everything-list@googlegroups.com> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Smullyan Shmullyan,
John M writes:
> Stathis:
> 1. to Kim's question to Bruno (and your reply):
> I call "reasonable" the items matching OUR (human) logic, even if we
call
> it
> a machine. There is no norm in the existence for 'reasonable', as
Cohen
> and
> Stewart showed in their chef d'oeuvre on Chaos in the ima
Thanks for that, Jesse. History-by-Hollywood has been my downfall
before...scriptwriter Akiva Goldsman should perhaps get six cuts of
the school cane for using such a high degree of creative licence with
the facts. A "Best Movie" vote seems to screw up one's scholarly
instincts to check th
Kim Jones wrote:
>
>Well, in the case of schizoid mathematician John Nash, his
>"psychotic" behaviour was also clearly linked to his maths ability.
>After imbibing anti-psychotic medication, not only did his "unreal"
>friends disappear, but his mathematical perception as well.
I don't think that
Well, in the case of schizoid mathematician John Nash, his
"psychotic" behaviour was also clearly linked to his maths ability.
After imbibing anti-psychotic medication, not only did his "unreal"
friends disappear, but his mathematical perception as well. The bind
he found himself in was su
ur quoted fragment I feel an equating of brain and mind, which I find
at least premature. I don't know what a "mind" may be. I "know"(?) it must
be both atemporal and aspatial, while the material of the brain is imagined
(physically) to be space and time related.
John M
-
Le 26-mai-06, à 19:35, Tom Caylor a écrit :
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> OK, let us try to name the biggest natural (finite) number we can, and
>> let us do that transfinite ascension on the growing functions from N
>> to
>> N.
>>
>> We have already build some well defined sequence o
Kim Jones writes:
Bruno,
what would an "unreasonable machine" be like? You seem to be implying
they exist, also that they can prove things about their possible
neighborhoods and or histories. (?)
Kim
An unreasonable machine would look like a brain. The minds of living
organisms, such as t
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> OK, let us try to name the biggest natural (finite) number we can, and
> let us do that transfinite ascension on the growing functions from N to
> N.
>
> We have already build some well defined sequence of description (code)
> of growing functions.
>
> Let us choose
Le 26-mai-06, à 02:50, James N Rose a écrit :
>
> Bruno,
>
> You struck a personal nerve in me with your following remarks:
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> They are degrees. The worst "unreasonableness" of a (platonist or
>> classical or even intuitionist) machine is when she believes some
>> pl
Bruno,
You struck a personal nerve in me with your following remarks:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> They are degrees. The worst "unreasonableness" of a (platonist or
> classical or even intuitionist) machine is when she believes some plain
> falsity (like p & ~p, or 0 = 1). The false implies all pro
Hi,
OK, let us try to name the biggest natural (finite) number we can, and
let us do that transfinite ascension on the growing functions from N to
N.
We have already build some well defined sequence of description (code)
of growing functions.
Let us choose the Hall Finney sequence to begin w
Le 24-mai-06, à 18:30, Tom Caylor a écrit :
>> Exercises:
>>
>> 0) Could you evaluate roughly the number of digit of 4 [4] 4 ? What
>> about the number of digit of fact(fact(fact(fact 4
>>
>> 1) is the diagonal g function a growing function? Could g belong to
>> the
>> initial sequence, doe
Le 25-mai-06, à 09:04, Kim Jones a écrit :
> what would an "unreasonable machine" be like? You seem to be implying
> they exist, also that they can prove things about their possible
> neighborhoods and or histories. (?)
They are degrees. The worst "unreasonableness" of a (platonist or
classi
Bruno,
what would an "unreasonable machine" be like? You seem to be implying
they exist, also that they can prove things about their possible
neighborhoods and or histories. (?)
Kim
On 23/05/2006, at 8:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Is it not utterly obvious that, IF we are (hopefully
>
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Hi George, Tom, Hal, and others,
>
> OK. I hope it is clear for everybody that, exactly like we have a
> natural infinite sequence of positive integer or natural numbers:
>
> 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.
>
> We have a natural sequence of growing functions, (also called
> operat
Hi George, Tom, Hal, and others,
OK. I hope it is clear for everybody that, exactly like we have a
natural infinite sequence of positive integer or natural numbers:
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.
We have a natural sequence of growing functions, (also called
operations):
ADDITION
MULTIPLICATION
E
Hi Russell,
You wrote (24 may):
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:25:35PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> In a sense, you are obviously right. That is why I said "some"
>> knowledge of comp science or even just in math will make the existence
>> of the UD, and of the Universal Machine astoni
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:25:35PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> In a sense, you are obviously right. That is why I said "some"
> knowledge of comp science or even just in math will make the existence
> of the UD, and of the Universal Machine astonishing. Precisely it is
> the knowledge
Le 23-mai-06, à 06:57, George Levy a écrit :
One can create faster and faster rising functions and larger and larger number until one is blue in the face. The point is that no matter how large a finite number n one defines, I can stand on the shoulder of giants and do better by citing n+1 using s
Le 21-mai-06, à 10:53, Russell Standish a écrit :
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 11:38:24AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> Also the universal dovetailer idea is also one of those that is
>>> fairly
>>> obvious, and might have been discovered a number of times
>>> independently.
>>
>>
>> I'm n
Le 22-mai-06, à 18:20, Tom Caylor a écrit :
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> ...
>> I give, for all, one last exercise before introducing diagonalization:
>> define recursively in an explicit way the operation [i+1] from the
>> preceding operation [i]. If you know a "computer language" (Fortran,
>> L
One can create faster and faster rising functions and larger and larger
number until one is blue in the face. The point is that no matter how
large a finite number n one defines, I can stand on the
shoulder of giants and do better by citing n+1 using simple addition.
Now if somehow one came u
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 11:38:24AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> > Also the universal dovetailer idea is also one of those that is fairly
> > obvious, and might have been discovered a number of times
> > independently.
>
>
> I'm not sure it is so easy, and in the present case I have never h
by j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com with HTTP;
Mon, 22 May 2006 16:20:25 + (UTC)
From: "Tom Caylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Everything List"
Subject: Re: Smullyan Shmullyan, give me a real example
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 09:20:25 -0700
Message-ID: <[EM
ROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Smul
r" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Everything List"
Subject: Re: Smullyan Shmullyan, give me a real example
Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 19:49:11 -0700
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PRO
cwa;
Sun, 21 May 2006 00:08:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-Token: MV9CDAwAAABW1UuTDcJqFpeal26hqLve
Received: from 207.200.116.67 by y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com with HTTP;
Sun, 21 May 2006 07:08:25 + (UTC)
From: "Tom Caylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Everything List"
Subject: Re:
Le 20-mai-06, à 01:17, Hal Finney a écrit :
>
> Bruno writes:
>> Meanwhile just a few questions to help me. They are hints for the=20
>> problem too. Are you familiar with the following "recursive"
>> program=20
>> for computing the factorial function?
>>
>> fact(0) = 1
>> fact (n) = n * fact(n
Le 19-mai-06, à 23:46, George Levy a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Now I think I should train you with diagonalization. I give you an
exercise: write a program which, if executed, will stop on the biggest
possible natural number. Fairy tale version: you meet a fairy who
propose you a wish. You
Bruno writes:
> Meanwhile just a few questions to help me. They are hints for the=20
> problem too. Are you familiar with the following "recursive" program=20
> for computing the factorial function?
>
> fact(0) =3D 1
> fact (n) =3D n * fact(n - 1)
>
> Could you compute "fact 5", from that program?
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Now I think I should train you with diagonalization. I give you an
exercise: write a program which, if executed, will stop on the biggest
possible natural number. Fairy tale version: you meet a fairy who
propose you a wish. You ask to be immortal but the fairy replie
Le 16-mai-06, à 17:31, Tom Caylor a écrit :
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> Now I think I should train you with diagonalization. I give you an
>> exercise: write a program which, if executed, will stop on the biggest
>> possible natural number. Fairy tale version: you meet a fairy who
>> propose
Le 16-mai-06, à 02:22, Russell Standish a écrit :
> An observer attaches a meaning to the data e observes. The set of all
> such meanings is semantic space or "meaning space". I believe this is
> necessarily a discrete set (but not necessarily finite).
If you have the time to define formally y
Le 11-mai-06, à 13:38, Russell Standish a écrit :
>
> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 01:00:31PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think Schroedinger used the cat for explaining a paradoxical feature
>> of QM, and I have not see suggestions by him that comp leads to either
>> many world or quantum
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Now I think I should train you with diagonalization. I give you an
> exercise: write a program which, if executed, will stop on the biggest
> possible natural number. Fairy tale version: you meet a fairy who
> propose you a wish. You ask to be immortal but the fairy replie
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 03:51:56PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Le 15-mai-06, à 13:59, Russell Standish a écrit :
>
> >> OK, why not taking that difference [description/computation] into
> >> account. I think it is a
> >> crucial point.
> >
> > I do :). However, its makes no difference as
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 01:00:31PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> I think Schroedinger used the cat for explaining a paradoxical feature
> of QM, and I have not see suggestions by him that comp leads to either
> many world or quantum immortality (as Everett and Deutsch will do for
> the ma
Le 15-mai-06, à 13:59, Russell Standish a écrit :
>> OK, why not taking that difference [description/computation] into
>> account. I think it is a
>> crucial point.
>
> I do :). However, its makes no difference as far as I can tell to the
> Occam's razor issue.
You do? See below.
>
>>
>>
>
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 11:17:35AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Le 15-mai-06, à 02:04, Russell Standish a écrit :
>
> >>
> >> I guess it is a delicate point, a key point though, which overlaps the
> >> ASSA/RSSA distinction (that is: the Absolute Self Sampling Assumption
> >> versus the Re
Le 15-mai-06, à 02:04, Russell Standish a écrit :
>>
>> I guess it is a delicate point, a key point though, which overlaps the
>> ASSA/RSSA distinction (that is: the Absolute Self Sampling Assumption
>> versus the Relative Self Sampling Assumption).
>>
>> If you identify a "conscious first perso
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 05:28:31PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Le 12-mai-06, à 09:41, Kim Jones a écrit :
>
> >
> > Bruno,
> >
> > I almost understand this. Just expand a little
> >
> > Kim
> >
> > On 11/05/2006, at 9:00 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> >> Schmidhuber did leave the list by
Le 12-mai-06, à 09:41, Kim Jones a écrit :
>
> Bruno,
>
> I almost understand this. Just expand a little
>
> Kim
>
> On 11/05/2006, at 9:00 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> Schmidhuber did leave the list by refusing explicitly the first-third
>> person distinction (which explain why his great progr
From: "Patrick Leahy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: Smullyan Shmullyan, give me a real example
>
>
> On Fri, 12 May 2006, Saibal Mitra wrote:
>
> >
> > Einstein seems to have believed in ''immorta
On Fri, 12 May 2006, Saibal Mitra wrote:
>
> Einstein seems to have believed in ''immortal observer moments''.
>
> In a BBC documentary about time it was mentioned that Einstein consoled a
> friend whose son had died in a tragic accident by saying that relativity
> suggests that the past and the
Bruno,
I almost understand this. Just expand a little
Kim
On 11/05/2006, at 9:00 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Schmidhuber did leave the list by refusing explicitly the first-third
> person distinction (which explain why his great programmer does not
> need to dovetail).
--~--~-~--~~
t.
Saibal
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 01:07 AM
Subject: Re: Smullyan Shmullyan, give me a real example
>
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:13:27PM +0100, Patrick Leahy wrote:
> >
> >
> > On who inve
Hi George,
>
> Bruno,
>
> Thank you for still working on my post. I am working on the reply, in
> particular designing the set of function or number that can be
> diagonalized to generate a large number. I shall be busy this weekend
> with family matters but I will reply to you in detail.
Take
Le 11-mai-06, à 01:07, Russell Standish a écrit :
>> (Sadly, Everett's daughter Liz, in her later suicide note, said
>> she was going to a parallel universe to be with her father...)"
>
> Sadly, because this is based on a total misunderstanding of QTI, I
> guess.
I guess and/or hope it was jus
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:13:27PM +0100, Patrick Leahy wrote:
>
>
> On who invented quantum suicide, the following is from the biography of
> Hugh Everett by Eugene B. Shikhovtsev and Kenneth W. Ford, at
> http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/everett/
>
> "Atheist or not, Everett firmly believe
On who invented quantum suicide, the following is from the biography of
Hugh Everett by Eugene B. Shikhovtsev and Kenneth W. Ford, at
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/everett/
"Atheist or not, Everett firmly believed that his many-worlds theory
guaranteed him immortality: His consciousness,
Bruno,
Thank you for still working on my post. I am working on the reply, in
particular designing the set of function or number that can be
diagonalized to generate a large number. I shall be busy this weekend
with family matters but I will reply to you in detail.
I agree that the idea of qua
Le 10-mai-06, à 04:19, Russell Standish a écrit :
James Higgo published a web page describing the history of quantum
suicide aka comp suicide. The notion obvious predates both Tegmark and
Marchal - and there is some anecdotal evidence that Edward Teller knew
about the argument in the early eighti
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 03:59:39PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> > Schroedinger came up with his
> > cat's paradox. Tegmark came up with the quantum suicide experiment.
>
>
> I came up first with the comp suicide, and much later after with the
> quantum suicide and with the "kill the user
Tom wrote
> My "beside myself" statement was a punny reference to self-reference.
> I meant that I am looking forward to your post(s) with positive
> eagerness.
Thanks. Also, I will follow your suggestion to force me writing little
post. I will first answer an older post by George (not to conf
Le 27-mars-06, à 06:09, George Levy a écrit :
I am looking forward to being diagonalized. I hope it won't hurt too much.
Asap. Meanwhile you could already medidate on my first diagonalization post here.
You can ask (out or online) any question including about notations or definitions:
http://
Bruno Marchal wrote:
<>
Le 25-mars-06, à 00:51, George Levy a écrit :
Smullyan's white knigth had the mission to teach me about the logic of
G
and G*. Sorry, he failed.
All right, but this is just because he miss Church Thesis and Comp. His
purpose actually is just to introduce you t
Le 25-mars-06, à 00:51, George Levy a écrit :
>
> Dear members of the list, Bruno and those who understand G.
>
> I have read or rather tried to read Smullyan's book. His examples are
> totally fabricated. I will never meet the white knight in the island of
> liars and truthtellers.
Nor will a
Dear members of the list, Bruno and those who understand G.
I have read or rather tried to read Smullyan's book. His examples are
totally fabricated. I will never meet the white knight in the island of
liars and truthtellers. I need examples which are relevant to life, at
least the way I under
76 matches
Mail list logo
