Re: Random reals are not computable!
examachine_at_gmail.com
Date: 01/26/05
- Next message: Torkel Franzen: "Re: Random reals are not computable!"
- Previous message: examachine_at_gmail.com: "Re: Random reals are not computable!"
- In reply to: Torkel Franzen: "Re: Random reals are not computable!"
- Next in thread: Torkel Franzen: "Re: Random reals are not computable!"
- Reply: Torkel Franzen: "Re: Random reals are not computable!"
- Reply: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Random reals are not computable!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 26 Jan 2005 10:28:50 -0800
Torkel Franzen wrote:
> examachine@gmail.com writes:
>
> > There is no such thing as the Turing-equivalence of two numbers
that I
> > know of,
>
> It means they have the same Turing degree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_degree
A real number is not a subset of natural numbers. Sure, it can be
represented as some subset, but strictly speaking, you are abusing the
term, and I don't like that.
Again, I'm asking you: what does it mean for a real number a to be
Turing equivalent to a real number b?
What does it mean for a real number a to have a Turing degree? I
honestly didn't hear such use, and I'm expecting a clarification.
I asked you guys before: do you mean reduction between two problems
when you said the two numbers are Turing equivalent? Let's be precise,
please. You demand maximum precision from me, and I demand the same
thing from you.
-- Eray
- Next message: Torkel Franzen: "Re: Random reals are not computable!"
- Previous message: examachine_at_gmail.com: "Re: Random reals are not computable!"
- In reply to: Torkel Franzen: "Re: Random reals are not computable!"
- Next in thread: Torkel Franzen: "Re: Random reals are not computable!"
- Reply: Torkel Franzen: "Re: Random reals are not computable!"
- Reply: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Random reals are not computable!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|