Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?
- From: "A.T." <andrzej-tomaszewski@xxxxx>
- Date: 30 Aug 2005 06:49:07 -0700
Jim Spriggs wrote:
> > 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.
I think I must do a lot more thinking here.
> > or will that be another
> > formulation of Russell's paradox
>
> Diagonalize out of your enumeration to prove that not all functions are
> algorithmic.
So it has to do with Cantor's diagonalization. I need to study a lot
more, and there is just one thing I know, I will never give up.
> > (with the list of all algorithms being
> > another way of expressing the set of all sets)?
>
> No, just a confusion.
>
> (I'm amused by Eagleson's "I hope I am clear.")
:-)
I don't know who you are Sir, or where you come from,
but you've done me a power of good.
Thank You very much indeed.
Tom
.
- 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: An instance of Russell's paradox?
- Next by Date: Re: Non-standard models of PA
- Previous by thread: Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?
- Next by thread: Ping Herbert B. Enderton
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|