Re: Raatikainen's critique of Chaitin

From: Torkel Franzen (torkel_at_sm.luth.se)
Date: 08/29/04 

Date: 29 Aug 2004 17:25:18 +0200

jesse@phiwumbda.org (Jesse F. Hughes) writes:

> The idea is this: Reasons have to be "simpler" than what they explain.
> To say that X is a reason for Y presupposes that X is simpler than Y.
> Since (some) equations involve Chaitin-random numbers cannot be proved
> except by sets of axioms of comparable complexity, these equations
> are true for no reason: there is no simpler fact that explains their
> truth.

  What technical result is this idea based on?

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
    ... >> Jesse F. Hughes wrote: ... >>> The Jordan curve theorem says that every simple closed curve ... The reason we have ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Distinct linear orderings on Z
    ... Jesse F. Hughes said: ... >> Order certainly does not make a difference in the cardinality. ... I see no reason that it doesn't serve ... Jesse, do you not think that it might be valid to think of to be half the ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Would it matter if ZF was inconsistent?
    ... *that's* the only reason is it? ... Jesse F. Hughes ... "Failure is not just a word. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
    ... Jesse F. Hughes wrote: ... reason about those sets. ... their notion of a computable set is different than ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Hughes to pitch Thursday vs. Blue Jays
    ... And I read recently that Jim Callis thought the ... Yanks should've promoted him last fall. ... of failure which is the reason why I wonder how he'd adjust after the ... I can understand your point completely about Hughes but also read your ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees)