Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?
- From: Chris Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 29 Aug 2005 23:32:07 GMT
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:53:34 +1200, Barb Knox <see@xxxxxxxxx> said:
> 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* ...
computable
> ...functions (or all Turing Machines, etc.) can be
> enumerated, and there is no diagonalisation problem with that.
>
> The set of just all *total* ...
computable
> ... 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.
.
- References:
- An instance of Russell's paradox?
- From: A.T.
- Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?
- From: Jim Spriggs
- Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?
- From: Barb Knox
- An instance of Russell's paradox?
- Prev by Date: Re: .999... = 1
- Next by Date: Re: Constructive Math query.
- Previous by thread: Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?
- Next by thread: Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|