Re: Can the 'Turing Problem' be deflated?
- From: george <greeneg@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:14:37 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 31, 4:45 pm, J Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"The TM either halts or does not engage in computation."
That should suffice. The statement is analytic -
In the first place, you don't know the definition of "analytic".
Analytic statements are provable BY DEFINITION, but that
may require you to actually KNOW the definitions of the
terms in the statements.
its proof is self-evident.
Only if you actually KNOW the definition of "engage
in computation", and possibly not even then.
In any case, YOU DON'T know the definition of "engage
in computation". You probably don't know the definition of TM
either. And how does any of this relate to what you were
saying BEFORE, about how a TM halts "between" EVERY
step of the process?? By YOUR (incorrect) definition,
every TM is always halting all the time, so there are no
TMs around to fail to "engage in computation".
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Can the 'Turing Problem' be deflated?
- From: J Jones
- Re: Can the 'Turing Problem' be deflated?
- Prev by Date: Re: Size Theory.
- Next by Date: Re: Size Theory.
- Previous by thread: Re: Can the 'Turing Problem' be deflated?
- Next by thread: Re: Can the 'Turing Problem' be deflated?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|