Re: Gina's multiplication problem - what I got out of it
From: Kevin Stern (K-Stern_at_neiu.edu)
Date: 08/06/04
- Next message: Arthur J. O'Dwyer: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Previous message: David Bandel: "Re: Gina's multiplication problem - what I got out of it"
- In reply to: >parr\(*>: "Gina's multiplication problem - what I got out of it"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 6 Aug 2004 10:12:58 -0700
">parr\(*>" <gniKyruaL@tenretnitb.moc> wrote in message news:<cevjrv$r21$1@hercules.btinternet.com>...
[snip]
> Marc Goodman has discovered the nature of Peter's intuitive 'block'.
> Peter believes 'All has to be knowable' which means that he believes
> 'All proofs of unknowability must be wrong'. That belief has a
> religious quality about it, it's a statement of faith, not science.
> Remember, Peter's been worrying at this problem for some time now
> having started on Go:del some time back.
Peter's 'block' fluctuates between the following, with each toggle
occurring after he understands why the current argument is wrong and
has forgotten why the other argument is wrong.
1. No program can use the result of Halt(M, x), therefore one cannot
construct the counterexample.
2. The counterexample is just a 'screwing-up' of Halt, the
counterexample not being possible has no impact on Halt being
possible.
Hope this helps.
- Next message: Arthur J. O'Dwyer: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Previous message: David Bandel: "Re: Gina's multiplication problem - what I got out of it"
- In reply to: >parr\(*>: "Gina's multiplication problem - what I got out of it"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
