Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?
From: Ajoy K Thamattoor (ajoyk_at_cs.stanford.edu)
Date: 01/18/05
- Next message: Torkel Franzen: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- Previous message: Piotr Sawuk: "Re: Idiocy of Muckenheim was Re: countability of reals"
- 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 ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:23:44 -0800 To: Torkel Franzen <torkel@sm.luth.se>
Torkel Franzen wrote:
> Ajoy K Thamattoor <ajoyk@cs.stanford.edu> writes:
>
>
>>Isn't it possible to have a definition of computability that
>>creates a set of computable functions of aleph-1 cardinality (ie., a
>>set with uncountably infinite elements)?
>
>
> No doubt such a concept can be produced, but Turing, Gödel, Church
> etc were concerned with functions from N to N computable by an
> algorithm.
Yes, each computable function is computable with an
algorithm (in other words, recursive), but the set of computable
functions would be uncountably infinite. How do we get from that
to ....
>There's an apparent obstacle to formulating an absolute notion of
>computability. To see this assume we have defined some notion of
>"computability". Arrange then the "computable" functions in a list
> F_1
> F_2
.
.
.
> F_n
In particular, how we can conclude that defining a notion
of computability would automatically enable us to arrange computable
functions in a list? Note that "defining" a set doesn't automatically
imply an effective procedure for checking membership in a set, at
least not in common parlance (and, as I mentioned, for comp.theory,
the word "definability" has no real formal meaning).
Ajoy.
- Next message: Torkel Franzen: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- Previous message: Piotr Sawuk: "Re: Idiocy of Muckenheim was Re: countability of reals"
- 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 ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|