Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? ***********
From: r.e.s. (r.s_at_ZZmindspring.com)
Date: 01/31/05
- Next message: rupertmccallum_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Theory versus implemention, I'm puzzled"
- Previous message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- In reply to: r.e.s.: "Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? ***********"
- Next in thread: |-|erc: "Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? ***********"
- Reply: |-|erc: "Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? ***********"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 02:03:10 GMT
"r.e.s." <r.s@ZZmindspring.com> wrote
> In the thread
> "Herc defines the HOLY GRAIL OF MATHEMATICS"
> I'd already explained to Herc about the problems with the
> MathWorld definition of Omega, *and* how to fix it, *and*
> provided a reference to the paper by Calude, et al, *and*
> explained differences between Omega and the quantity tau,
> which is special case of your K_U.
I meant to refer to the thread "Why we cannot compute omega".
- Next message: rupertmccallum_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Theory versus implemention, I'm puzzled"
- Previous message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- In reply to: r.e.s.: "Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? ***********"
- Next in thread: |-|erc: "Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? ***********"
- Reply: |-|erc: "Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? ***********"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
