Re: Why we cannot compute omega
From: Arthur Fischer (arthurfischer_at_sym.ca)
Date: 01/25/05
- Next message: Jan Murray: "Final Call for Tutorials/Workshops for KI 2005"
- Previous message: Ralph Hartley: "Re: WELL WHICH IS IT... ?"
- In reply to: |-|erc: "Re: Why we cannot compute omega"
- Next in thread: Will Twentyman: "Re: Why we cannot compute omega"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:58:36 -0500
|-|erc wrote:
> "george" <greeneg@cs.unc.edu> wrote in >
>
>>>>just because
>>>>
>>>>>'the sum of those numbers' is 'well defined'
>>
>>No, actually, it is NOT well-defined.
>
>
>
> ***********************************
> * 133
> *
> * 888 25
> *
> * Sum of numbers on this board : ____
> *
> **********************************
>
> I know its well defined because it equals 1040 in this example, dumbass!
Here's my example:
*********************
* *
* Sum of numbers on *
* this board: 1024 *
* *
*********************
Now, the sum of all numbers on this blackboard is 1024, and, yup, 1024
appears on the blackboard.
Seeing as my result differs from your question (and actually appears to
contradict it), and seeing as you are the self-professed genius of these
newsgroups -- actually, why am I hedging -- the self-professed genius of
Usenet, perhaps you can explain why my example is bad, and why your's isn't.
__
Arthur
- Next message: Jan Murray: "Final Call for Tutorials/Workshops for KI 2005"
- Previous message: Ralph Hartley: "Re: WELL WHICH IS IT... ?"
- In reply to: |-|erc: "Re: Why we cannot compute omega"
- Next in thread: Will Twentyman: "Re: Why we cannot compute omega"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
