Re: Turing Machines and Physical Computation
From: David Longley (David_at_longley.demon.co.uk)
Date: 11/21/04
- Next message: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)"
- Previous message: David Longley: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)"
- In reply to: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: Turing Machines and Physical Computation"
- Next in thread: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: Turing Machines and Physical Computation"
- Reply: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: Turing Machines and Physical Computation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 09:39:56 +0000
In article <207fe873374c584e8a375f35c5b1d9f7.48257@mygate.mailgate.org>,
Kent Paul Dolan <xanthian@well.com> writes
>"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.
>
>
>
If you want to restrict your metaphysics to sci.maths, comp.theory or
misc.misc that's fine by me. But you should understand that computers
per se had very little to do with Turing despite what you think. We had
"computers" long before. What Turing and the others did was provide a
theory of computing. The real histories in life are not all in the
public domain. It's often deemed not to be in the public interest.
-- David Longley
- Next message: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)"
- Previous message: David Longley: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)"
- In reply to: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: Turing Machines and Physical Computation"
- Next in thread: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: Turing Machines and Physical Computation"
- Reply: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: Turing Machines and Physical Computation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|