Le 02-nov.-06, à 17:34, David Nyman a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't understand really what you mean by AUDA is not RITSIAR. AUDA
is just the lobian interview, or if you prefer the complete
mathematical formalization of the UDA reasoning. In some sense you can
interpret it as the
Marc,
I do not argue with 'your half' of the 'answer' you gave to the conference
announcement of Jürgen Schm , I just ask for the 'other part': what should
we call a computer?
'Anything' doing Comp? (meaning: whatever is doing it)?
Will the conference be limited to that technically embryonic
uncompoutable numbers, non countable sets etc. don't exist in first
order logic, see here:
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/logsys/low-skol.htm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ah the famous Juergen Schmidhuber! :)
Is the universe a computer. Well, if you define 'universe' to
It is not a question of existence but of definability.
For example you can define and prove (by Cantor diagonalization) the
existence of uncountable sets in ZF which is a first order theory of
sets.
Now uncountability is not an absolute notion (that is the
Lowenheim-Skolem lesson).
Careful:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 02-nov.-06, à 17:34, David Nyman a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't understand really what you mean by AUDA is not RITSIAR. AUDA
is just the lobian interview, or if you prefer the complete
mathematical formalization of the UDA reasoning. In some sense
In conscience et mécanisme I use Lowenheim Skolem theorem to explain
why the first person of PA see uncountable things despite the fact
that from the 0 person pov and the 3 person pov there is only countably
many things (for PA).
I explain it through a comics. See the drawings the page
6 matches
Mail list logo
