Re: Turing completeness of the functional paradigm?

From: Robert Low <mtx014@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:42:09 +0100

Babylonian wrote:

PA does not define a unique notion of natural numbers. No formalism
ever will.


By 'formalism' do you mean 'first order'? Because there are
certainly sets of axioms which uniquely define the natural
numbers: the second order Peano axioms do this.
.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Turing completeness of the functional paradigm?
  - From: Chris Menzel

References:
- Turing completeness of the functional paradigm?
  - From: Tom
- Re: Turing completeness of the functional paradigm?
  - From: William Elliot
- Re: Turing completeness of the functional paradigm?
  - From: Tom
- Re: Turing completeness of the functional paradigm?
  - From: William Elliot
- Re: Turing completeness of the functional paradigm?
  - From: Tom
- Re: Turing completeness of the functional paradigm?
  - From: William Elliot
- Re: Turing completeness of the functional paradigm?
  - From: Tom
- Re: Turing completeness of the functional paradigm?
  - From: Babylonian
- Re: Turing completeness of the functional paradigm?
  - From: Tom
- Re: Turing completeness of the functional paradigm?
  - From: Babylonian
- Re: Turing completeness of the functional paradigm?
  - From: Tom
- Re: Turing completeness of the functional paradigm?
  - From: Babylonian

Prev by Date: Re: Turing completeness of the functional paradigm?
Next by Date: Re: Equivalent modal logics
Previous by thread: Re: Turing completeness of the functional paradigm?
Next by thread: Re: Turing completeness of the functional paradigm?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread