Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?
- From: Barb Knox <see@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:53:34 +1200
In article <43137D84.E77AF49E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Jim Spriggs <jim.sprigs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>"A.T." wrote:
[snip]
>> 1. Can all algorithms be enumerated,
>
>Yes. An algorithm can be expressed in finite terms in a formal
>language. Therefore there are no more than countably many of them.
>
>> or will that be another
>> formulation of Russell's paradox
>
>Diagonalize out of your enumeration to prove that not all functions are
>algorithmic.
All *partial* functions (or all Turing Machines, etc.) can be
enumerated, and there is no diagonalisation problem with that.
The set of just all *total* functions (or always-halting TMs, etc.) can
not be enumerated for the reason you give: the diagonalisation of any
list of total functions will be another total function which is
different from every one in the list.
[snip]
--
---------------------------
| BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
| B B aa rrr b |
| BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit,
| B B a a r b b | altum viditur.
| BBB aa a r bbb |
-----------------------------
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?
- From: A.T.
- Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?
- From: Chris Menzel
- Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?
- References:
- An instance of Russell's paradox?
- From: A.T.
- Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?
- From: Jim Spriggs
- An instance of Russell's paradox?
- Prev by Date: Re: .999... = 1
- Next by Date: Re: .999... = 1
- Previous by thread: Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?
- Next by thread: Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|