Re: Wow - you don't want to miss _this_ one!
From: |-|erc (gotcha_at_beauty.com)
Date: 06/15/04
- Next message: Rob Johnson: "Re: Rational approximation of exponential function"
- Previous message: Chan-Ho Suh: "Re: Is pure mathematics worth spending tax money for it?"
- In reply to: George Greene: "Re: Wow - you don't want to miss _this_ one!"
- Next in thread: Will Twentyman: "Re: Wow - you don't want to miss _this_ one!"
- Reply: Will Twentyman: "Re: Wow - you don't want to miss _this_ one!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 02:29:14 GMT
> Again, Peter Olcott simply is not aware of what the Halting Problem's
> hypothesis IS, or what its statement is in general, or what conceptual
> framework it presumes.
no, Peters arguments are precise and correct so far. You have yet to
qualify the infinite loop construction as necessary to a particular system
of functions.
constructions of the type
f(x) = g(x,x) are easy to identify, just like you classify x = ~x as inconsistent.
Amazingly you haven't got to your 'addendum' to halt, that diagonalisation
on the halting programs produces a new input.
Herc
- Next message: Rob Johnson: "Re: Rational approximation of exponential function"
- Previous message: Chan-Ho Suh: "Re: Is pure mathematics worth spending tax money for it?"
- In reply to: George Greene: "Re: Wow - you don't want to miss _this_ one!"
- Next in thread: Will Twentyman: "Re: Wow - you don't want to miss _this_ one!"
- Reply: Will Twentyman: "Re: Wow - you don't want to miss _this_ one!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
