Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website

From: Martin Shobe (mshobe_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 08/11/04 

Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:19:19 GMT

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 01:59:57 GMT, "Peter Olcott"
<olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>"David C. Ullrich" <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message news:h77hh09dgpr36g7q1g671b2m9sphqkehfr@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 23:43:29 GMT, "Peter Olcott"
>> <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Simon G Best" <s.g.best@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:411773FB.3020801@btopenworld.com...
>> >> Peter Olcott wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > If Turing use the diagonalization approach then the basis of my refutation
>> >> > would not apply because the pure math version does not permit the
>> >> > equations to have any intelligence. The equations are not allowed to
>> >> > refrain from returning a result.
>> >>
>> >> It was all about maths to begin with. Did you really not know that?
>> >>
>> >> Simon
>> >>
>> >No I did not. I thought that it was about Turing Machines.
>>
>> huh? tms are not a mathematical topic?
>
>Not really they are much more of a comp.theory topic.

I believe that nowdays, they aren't that much of a computer theory
topic. The preferred formalism in computer theory is currently the
lambda calculii.

Martin

Relevant Pages