Re: Random reals are not computable!
From: Mike Oliver (mike_lists_at_verizon.net)
Date: 01/25/05
- Next message: LordBeotian: "Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH **********"
- Previous message: examachine_at_gmail.com: "Re: Random reals are not computable!"
- In reply to: examachine_at_gmail.com: "Re: Random reals are not computable!"
- Next in thread: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Random reals are not computable!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:50:23 -0600
examachine@gmail.com wrote:
> Torkel Franzen wrote:
>>examachine@gmail.com writes:
>>
>>>A real number is random iff it is not computable.
>>
>> On which definition of "computable real number"?
>
> Like it differs according to whose definition. What do you have in
> mind?
Rather than trading Socratic irony with Torkel, why not respond
to my specific refutation? Unless you *like* trading Socratic
irony with Torkel. Hey, none of my business.
- Next message: LordBeotian: "Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH **********"
- Previous message: examachine_at_gmail.com: "Re: Random reals are not computable!"
- In reply to: examachine_at_gmail.com: "Re: Random reals are not computable!"
- Next in thread: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Random reals are not computable!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
