Re: Proper Turing cones are null?
From: Keith Ramsay (kramsay_at_aol.com)
Date: 02/24/05
- Next message: OsherD: "Re: Lie Bracket Generalized in Logic"
- Previous message: Stephen Harris: "Re: Proper Turing cones are null?"
- In reply to: Mike Oliver: "Re: Proper Turing cones are null?"
- Next in thread: Keith Ramsay: "Re: Proper Turing cones are null?"
- Reply: Keith Ramsay: "Re: Proper Turing cones are null?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 23 Feb 2005 23:38:28 -0800
Mike Oliver wrote:
| Beautiful argument. Thanks, Keith.
I wonder whether you woke me up by telepathy ;-)
since I woke up extra early, shortly before you
posted this morning, thinking the counterexample
had something wrong with it.
After I posted the argument, I seemed to vaguely
remember having seen an argument something like it
in a sci.math.research discussion. I don't know
whether anybody remembers what I'm remembering.
| So that clarifies a remark that Hirschfeldt made at the
| VIG, where he alleged that there were two kinds of random
| reals--"fake" ones that compute 0' and therefore can
| predict all the Martin-Loef tests and see how to pass them,
| and "honest" ones that don't compute 0'. Since the set of reals
| that compute 0' is null, of course an "honest" random
| should not compute 0'.
I like it.
Keith Ramsay
- Next message: OsherD: "Re: Lie Bracket Generalized in Logic"
- Previous message: Stephen Harris: "Re: Proper Turing cones are null?"
- In reply to: Mike Oliver: "Re: Proper Turing cones are null?"
- Next in thread: Keith Ramsay: "Re: Proper Turing cones are null?"
- Reply: Keith Ramsay: "Re: Proper Turing cones are null?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
