Re: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots
From: Bryan Olson (fakeaddress_at_nowhere.org)
Date: 07/09/04
- Next message: Ross A. Finlayson: "Re: Infinity can not exist"
- Previous message: Corey Kat: "Re: Infinity can not exist"
- In reply to: Peter Olcott: "Re: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots"
- Next in thread: Peter Olcott: "Re: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots"
- Reply: Peter Olcott: "Re: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 02:36:11 GMT
Peter Olcott wrote:
> "Bryan Olson" wrote:
>>Peter Olcott wrote:
[...]
>> > I was talking about
>> > the philosophy of language. Every mathematical argument that
>> > was presently did not apply to most everything that I said.
>>
>>Likewise, "most everything that [you] said" had nothing to do
>>with the mathematical argument Turing presented.
>
> In one sense what Turing stated was mathematically sound.
> There does exist a computer program that can thwart the
> universal set of WillHalt() functions.
That has nothing to do with the halting problem, nor the proof
halting is not Turing-decidable.
-- --Bryan
- Next message: Ross A. Finlayson: "Re: Infinity can not exist"
- Previous message: Corey Kat: "Re: Infinity can not exist"
- In reply to: Peter Olcott: "Re: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots"
- Next in thread: Peter Olcott: "Re: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots"
- Reply: Peter Olcott: "Re: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
Loading