Re: Why we cannot compute omega
From: Will Twentyman (wtwentyman_at_read.my.sig)
Date: 01/25/05
- Next message: Mike Oliver: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- Previous message: Acme Diagnostics: "Re: Random reals are not computable!"
- In reply to: |-|erc: "Re: Why we cannot compute omega"
- Next in thread: examachine_at_gmail.com: "Re: Why we cannot compute omega"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:49:50 -0500
|-|erc wrote:
> "george" <greeneg@cs.unc.edu> wrote in >
>
>>>>just because
>>>>
>>>>>'the sum of those numbers' is 'well defined'
>>
>>No, actually, it is NOT well-defined.
>
>
>
> ***********************************
> * 133
> *
> * 888 25
> *
> * Sum of numbers on this board : ____
> *
> **********************************
>
> I know its well defined because it equals 1040 in this example, dumbass!
1) this assumes a finite number of numbers.
2) When you write the sum: if it is not 0, it will change the sum of the
numbers on the board making the statement incorrect.
-- Will Twentyman email: wtwentyman at copper dot net
- Next message: Mike Oliver: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- Previous message: Acme Diagnostics: "Re: Random reals are not computable!"
- In reply to: |-|erc: "Re: Why we cannot compute omega"
- Next in thread: examachine_at_gmail.com: "Re: Why we cannot compute omega"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
