Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?
From: LordBeotian (pokipsy76_at_CANCELLAMIyahoo.it)
Date: 01/12/05
- Next message: Will Twentyman: "Re: .999... stillstillstillstill =/= 1"
- Previous message: Will Twentyman: "Re: HOW MANY DIGITS OF PI HAVE PROPERTY X ?"
- In reply to: Torkel Franzen: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- Next in thread: Torkel Franzen: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- Reply: Torkel Franzen: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:48:58 GMT
"Torkel Franzen" <torkel@sm.luth.se> ha scritto
> > Did Church and Turing explain what they ment by "intuitively computable"
> > when they formulated their thesis?
>
> Not "intuitively computable", but "mechanically computable". And
> certainly they did. Nothing similar has been presented for "possible
> recognizable truth".
Turing words:
"Every 'function which would naturally be regarded as computable' can be
computed by a Turing machine"
The expression 'function which would naturally be regarded as computable' is
intentionally left vague and not formally defined.
In the same way I wanted to say something about some "statements that would
naturally be ragarded as true" without formalizing this notion. Mine was
just an Idea, no matter if nobody here like it...
- Next message: Will Twentyman: "Re: .999... stillstillstillstill =/= 1"
- Previous message: Will Twentyman: "Re: HOW MANY DIGITS OF PI HAVE PROPERTY X ?"
- In reply to: Torkel Franzen: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- Next in thread: Torkel Franzen: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- Reply: Torkel Franzen: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
