Re: My claim on Omega's defn
From: r.e.s. (r.s_at_ZZmindspring.com)
Date: 01/31/05
- Next message: Torkel Franzen: "Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones""
- Previous message: |-|erc: "Re: My claim on Omega's defn"
- In reply to: |-|erc: "Re: My claim on Omega's defn"
- Next in thread: |-|erc: "Re: My claim on Omega's defn"
- Reply: |-|erc: "Re: My claim on Omega's defn"
- Reply: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: My claim on Omega's defn"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:42:45 GMT
"|-|erc" <H@r.c> wrote ...
> "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote ...
>> But it doesn't matter; if one calculates
>>
>> K_U = sum(all halting P) (2^(-identifyingnumber(P)))
>>
>> instead of
>>
>> omega_U = sum(all halting P) (2^(-numbits(P)))
>>
>> then K_U will always converge, and both are uncomputable by a UTM.
>
> It does matter if you define OMEGA as the reason reals are uncountable
> and then you say nobody can use it.
Still haven't read this, eh? ...
C. S. Calude, et al, "Computing a Glimpse of Randomness"
http://www.expmath.org/expmath/volumes/11/11.3/Calude361_370.pdf
Get a clue about UTMs with prefix-free domain.
--r.e.s.
- Next message: Torkel Franzen: "Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones""
- Previous message: |-|erc: "Re: My claim on Omega's defn"
- In reply to: |-|erc: "Re: My claim on Omega's defn"
- Next in thread: |-|erc: "Re: My claim on Omega's defn"
- Reply: |-|erc: "Re: My claim on Omega's defn"
- Reply: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: My claim on Omega's defn"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
