Re: Turing Machines and Physical Computation

From: Kent Paul Dolan (xanthian_at_well.com)
Date: 11/21/04

  • Next message: stephen_at_nomail.com: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)" 
    Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 04:09:53 +0000 (UTC)

    "David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
    > Stephen Harris <cyberguard1048-usenet@yahoo.com> writes:

    >> I can't see how bringing finite TMs into this
    >> issue, just because they are practical is useful
    >> at all. The issue being discussed is not
    >> practical/physical but theoretical, hypothetical
    >> and abstract; an idea not a physical thing.

    > Are you sure about that? Are you sure you haven't
    > missed the whole point of what the first half of
    > 20th century philosophy and earlier (from Frege to
    > Goedel and beyond) was really all about?

    David, since you have utterly no concept what the
    subject under discussion is (hint "philosophy" is
    the wrong answer), nor education nor inclination
    ever to understand the subject matter, how about
    learning to hold your peace, rather than riding your
    inane hobby horse to trample roughshod over yet
    another conversation to which you were not invited,
    in which you do not belong, and where all you can do
    is (correctly) portray yourself to be a classic
    boorish dolt?

    HTH

    xanthian. 

    -- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
  • Next message: stephen_at_nomail.com: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)"