Russell Standish wrote:
>Hal Finney wrote:
>>
>> That would be true IF you include descriptions that are infinitely long.
>> Then the set of all descriptions would be of cardinality c. If your
>> definition of a description implies that each one must be finite, then the
>> set of all of them wou
Jesse Mazer wrote
> [snip]
> ...
>Doesn't the UDA argument in some sense depend on the
>idea of computing "in the limit" too?
Yes. This follows from the "invariance lemma", i.e. from
the fact that the first persons cannot be aware of delays
of "reconstitution" in UD* (the complete work of the UD
2 matches
Mail list logo
