Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? ***********
From: Torkel Franzen (torkel_at_sm.luth.se)
Date: 01/30/05
- Next message: LordBeotian: "Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones""
- Previous message: Tom Dickenhari: "Change"
- In reply to: r.e.s.: "Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? ***********"
- Next in thread: |-|erc: "Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? ***********"
- Reply: |-|erc: "Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? ***********"
- Reply: r.e.s.: "Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? ***********"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 30 Jan 2005 12:02:07 +0100
"r.e.s." <r.s@ZZmindspring.com> writes:
> The formula given there is meant only
> for a restricted type of UTM -- one whose domain (the
> set of p such that U(p) halts) is *prefix-free*.
More specifically, a prefix-free Turing machine which is universal
for prefix-free Turing machines.
- Next message: LordBeotian: "Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones""
- Previous message: Tom Dickenhari: "Change"
- In reply to: r.e.s.: "Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? ***********"
- Next in thread: |-|erc: "Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? ***********"
- Reply: |-|erc: "Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? ***********"
- Reply: r.e.s.: "Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? ***********"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]