Re: My claim on Omega's defn
From: r.e.s. (r.s_at_ZZmindspring.com)
Date: 02/03/05
- Next message: John Baez: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- Previous message: Chairman of the David Hilbert Appreciation Society: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- In reply to: Ralph Hartley: "Re: My claim on Omega's defn"
- Next in thread: Ralph Hartley: "Re: My claim on Omega's defn"
- Reply: Ralph Hartley: "Re: My claim on Omega's defn"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:33:16 GMT
"Ralph Hartley" <hartley@aic.nrl.navy.mil> wrote ...
> r.e.s. wrote:
>> x is a random r.e. real in (0,1) iff x is a Chaitin Omega. [1]
> There are a countable number of Omegas, and I'm pretty sure there are an
> uncountable number of random non-computable reals. R.e. reals are
> countable, so that works better.
Yes, the r.e. proviso is necessary, because there are
uncountably many random reals. A proof of [1] is in
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~cristian/cerand.pdf
--r.e.s.
- Next message: John Baez: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- Previous message: Chairman of the David Hilbert Appreciation Society: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- In reply to: Ralph Hartley: "Re: My claim on Omega's defn"
- Next in thread: Ralph Hartley: "Re: My claim on Omega's defn"
- Reply: Ralph Hartley: "Re: My claim on Omega's defn"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
