2014-10-24 22:02 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I believe it's you who has not integrated the consequences of
consciousness not having a location. So it is meaningless to ask what city
will you be in?,
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 12:38:48PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
Bruno's argument shows that they must be a part of the phenomenal
(experienced) world if COMP is true.
OK then comp is false. And now that we
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
Bruno's argument shows that they must be a part of the phenomenal
(experienced) world if COMP is true.
OK then comp is false. And now that we know that comp is false
what's the point of talking about it
On 23 October 2014 13:23, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:03 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't looked at it in years, if you put a gun to my head I could no
longer even tell you what steps 0, 1, or 2 were or if it was in step 3
that I decided that
On 23 October 2014 13:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 05:23:38PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Oct 2014, at 11:37, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Brent,
That is certainly true for Schrodinger's equations,
but is it also true for matrix theory?
On 23 October 2014 15:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But by the same kind of positivist attitude there's no reason to think
that every integer has a successor. It's just a convenient assumption for
doing proofs and calculations.
So do you think there's a largest integer? If so,
On 23 October 2014 15:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/22/2014 7:12 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
Quantum mechanics assumes real and complex numbers.
Quantum mechanics works very well, but every time we've tested it
On 23 Oct 2014, at 04:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/22/2014 5:35 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 05:23:38PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Oct 2014, at 11:37, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Brent,
That is certainly true for Schrodinger's equations,
but is it also true for
On 23 Oct 2014, at 03:41, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Wait? How long should I wait?
Well, it depends which programs you want to know if it stops or
not. The disonaur program stopped. In case it is that one. But for
the search of a
On 23 Oct 2014, at 02:23, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:03 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't looked at it in years, if you put a gun to my head I could
no longer even tell you what steps 0, 1, or 2 were or if it was in
step 3 that I decided that the entire thing
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Quantum mechanics works very well, but every time we've tested it
with experiment the values we put into it and the values we measure after
the experiment have only had values at best a dozen or so places to the
right of
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:30 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
No, in other words several years ago I started to read Bruno's proof
and stopped reading when I made the determination that he didn't know what
he was talking about. Nothing Bruno has said since then has made me think I
made the
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:30 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
There are much more interesting objections to Bruno's proof than the one
you cite, which appears to be, at best, a semantic quibble.
I assume you're referring to Bruno's irresponsible use of personal
pronouns, and that is far more
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You got the idea that consciousness is not localizable,
Yes.
but it seems that you fail to appreciate the consequences on this
I believe it's you who has not integrated the consequences of consciousness
not having a location. So
2014-10-23 21:21 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:30 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
There are much more interesting objections to Bruno's proof than the one
you cite, which appears to be, at best, a semantic quibble.
I assume you're referring to
On 10/23/2014 12:36 AM, LizR wrote:
On 23 October 2014 15:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
But by the same kind of positivist attitude there's no reason to think that
every
integer has a successor. It's just a convenient assumption for doing proofs
On 10/23/2014 12:37 AM, LizR wrote:
On 23 October 2014 15:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 10/22/2014 7:12 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
Quantum
On 24 October 2014 09:09, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/23/2014 12:37 AM, LizR wrote:
On 23 October 2014 15:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/22/2014 7:12 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
Quantum
On 24 October 2014 09:09, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/23/2014 12:36 AM, LizR wrote:
On 23 October 2014 15:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But by the same kind of positivist attitude there's no reason to think
that every integer has a successor. It's just a
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 01:08:37PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Quantum mechanics works very well, but every time we've tested it
with experiment the values we put into it and the values we measure after
the experiment
On 10/23/2014 10:08 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Quantum mechanics works very well, but every time we've tested it
with experiment the values we put into it and the values we measure
On 10/23/2014 1:56 PM, LizR wrote:
On 24 October 2014 09:09, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 10/23/2014 12:37 AM, LizR wrote:
On 23 October 2014 15:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/22/2014 7:12
Brent,
That is certainly true for Schrodinger's equations,
but is it also true for matrix theory?
Re: real and complex numbers.
Richard
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/21/2014 8:05 PM, LizR wrote:
On 22 October 2014 08:40, Russell Standish
On 21 Oct 2014, at 17:14, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
people proposing a Super Turing Machines are much more vague.
I was not proposing any Super Turing machines. I was alluding that
the simple algorithm consisting to run a
On 22 Oct 2014, at 05:05, LizR wrote:
On 22 October 2014 08:40, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:14:14AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
So you don't assume the real numbers
On 22 Oct 2014, at 11:37, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Brent,
That is certainly true for Schrodinger's equations,
but is it also true for matrix theory?
Re: real and complex numbers.
Why would it be different for the matrix. In non relativistic QM, the
position observable in a continuous
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:03 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't looked at it in years, if you put a gun to my head I could no
longer even tell you what steps 0, 1, or 2 were or if it was in step 3
that I decided that the entire thing was worthless or if it was in some
other step,
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 05:23:38PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Oct 2014, at 11:37, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Brent,
That is certainly true for Schrodinger's equations,
but is it also true for matrix theory?
Re: real and complex numbers.
Why would it be different for the matrix.
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Wait? How long should I wait?
Well, it depends which programs you want to know if it stops or not. The
disonaur program stopped. In case it is that one. But for the search of a
proof of Goldbach in ZF, you might have to wait a
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
Quantum mechanics assumes real and complex numbers.
Quantum mechanics works very well, but every time we've tested it
with experiment the values we put into it and the values we measure after
the experiment have only had values at
On 10/22/2014 5:35 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 05:23:38PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Oct 2014, at 11:37, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Brent,
That is certainly true for Schrodinger's equations,
but is it also true for matrix theory?
Re: real and complex numbers.
Why
On 10/22/2014 7:12 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
Quantum mechanics assumes real and complex numbers.
Quantum mechanics works very well, but every time we've tested it with experiment the
values we put
On 18 Oct 2014, at 19:48, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Gödel shows that there are solution of Einstein's equation of
gravitation with closed timelike curves, making them consistent.
But only if you assume that the Universe is
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
people proposing a Super Turing Machines are much more vague.
I was not proposing any Super Turing machines. I was alluding that the
simple algorithm consisting to run a machine and wait if it stops or not
is enough
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:14:14AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
So you don't assume the real numbers exist?
Indeed.
Interesting.
In Bruno's TOE, real numbers don't exist in the same way as integers,
much in
On 22 October 2014 04:14, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Have I? I haven't looked at it in years, if you put a gun to my head I
could no longer even tell you what steps 0, 1, or 2 were or if it was in
step 3 that I decided that the entire thing was worthless or if it was in
some
On 22 October 2014 08:40, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:14:14AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
So you don't assume the real numbers exist?
Indeed.
Interesting.
On 10/21/2014 8:05 PM, LizR wrote:
On 22 October 2014 08:40, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:14:14AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
In 1972 Bekenstein discovered that the maximum amount of information you
can put inside a sphere is proportional not to it's volume as you might
expect but to it's surface area, and it's 2PI*R*E/h*c*ln2 where R is the
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 6:40 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Gödel shows that there are solution of Einstein's equation of
gravitation with closed timelike curves, making them consistent.
But only if you assume that the Universe is rotating, and experimental
evidence proves that it is
JohnKC:
do you believe that IF the fixation on our embryonic digital machine of a
'bit' of info can be measured in units of our physical figment system, does
INDEED C A US E (create) that information?
Otherwise the calculation is not much different from observing a color.
On Fri, Oct 17,
On 20 October 2014 03:54, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 6:40 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Gödel shows that there are solution of Einstein's equation of
gravitation with closed timelike curves, making them consistent.
But only if you assume that the
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Gödel shows that there are solution of Einstein's equation of
gravitation with closed timelike curves, making them consistent.
But only if you assume that the Universe is rotating, and experimental
evidence proves that
-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Oct 18, 2014 1:48 pm
Subject: Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Gödel shows that there are solution of Einstein's equation of gravitation
with closed timelike curves, making them
On 18 October 2014 00:35, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 2:17 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:18 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
there was no one around in the big bang that we know of, yet it would
appear any maths
On 18 October 2014 09:47, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 3:42 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
to math make the Big Bang or did the Big Bang make the math? I don't
know and I'm not going to pretend that I do.
I don't see how the big bang could make 2+2=4.
On 19 October 2014 06:48, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Gödel shows that there are solution of Einstein's equation of
gravitation with closed timelike curves, making them consistent.
But only if you assume
On 10/18/2014 3:37 PM, LizR wrote:
On 18 October 2014 09:47, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 3:42 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com
wrote:
to math make the Big Bang or did the Big Bang make the
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:18 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
there was no one around in the big bang that we know of, yet it would
appear any maths that might be involved in physical processes managed to
work OK.
Yes, but to math make the Big Bang or did the Big Bang make the math? I
On 17 October 2014 19:17, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:18 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
there was no one around in the big bang that we know of, yet it would
appear any maths that might be involved in physical processes managed to
work OK.
Yes,
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 2:17 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:18 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
there was no one around in the big bang that we know of, yet it would
appear any maths that might be involved in physical processes managed to
work OK.
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 3:42 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
to math make the Big Bang or did the Big Bang make the math? I don't
know and I'm not going to pretend that I do.
I don't see how the big bang could make 2+2=4. Are you saying that in
another big bang, 2+2=5?
No, but I am
On 16 Oct 2014, at 21:43, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
there is no logical reason or empirical evidence to think that
the halting oracle exists in the physical world or even in Plato's
abstract Platonia.
Time implement
On 17 Oct 2014, at 22:47, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 3:42 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
to math make the Big Bang or did the Big Bang make the math? I
don't know and I'm not going to pretend that I do.
I don't see how the big bang could make 2+2=4. Are you saying that
On 14 Oct 2014, at 04:24, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Not all information is computable. If (a_i) =
001000111010111110001001000110110001110111101000...
with a_i = 1 if the ith programs (without input) stop, and 0 if not.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
there is no logical reason or empirical evidence to think that the
halting oracle exists in the physical world or even in Plato's abstract
Platonia.
Time implement the halting oracle. There is a result by Schoenfield
On 17 October 2014 08:43, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
If the physical world didn't exist and there wasn't 4 of anything and
never has been, would 2+2=4 have any meaning? And even if it did would it
matter, who would be around to understand that meaning? You have always
just assumed
On 13 Oct 2014, at 02:58, John Clark wrote:
For your information
I like information because Information is computable.
Not all information is computable. If (a_i) =
001000111010111110001001000110110001110111101000...
with a_i = 1 if the ith programs (without input) stop,
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Not all information is computable. If (a_i) =
001000111010111110001001000110110001110111101000...
with a_i = 1 if the ith programs (without input) stop, and 0 if not.
That the halting oracle information, and it is
On 10 Oct 2014, at 23:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/10/2014 10:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Oct 2014, at 23:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/9/2014 2:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-10-09 23:23 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com:
2014-10-09 22:02 GMT+02:00 John Clark
For your information
I like information because Information is computable.
such non-computable feature could be primitive matter,
Not only is there no evidence that non-computable process exist in the
physical world there isn't even any reason to think it exists in Plato's
abstract
On 09 Oct 2014, at 21:03, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If nature can do it then there is no reason humans can't harness
nature to do it for us, but there is ZERO evidence that nature can
solve NP complete problems (much less non
On 09 Oct 2014, at 23:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/9/2014 2:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-10-09 23:23 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com:
2014-10-09 22:02 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/2014 9:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But I can argue that some theory cannot be outranked by an experiment. Two possible
examples: the theory that I (you) are conscious here and now (may be hallucinated, just
conscious). The other example: elementary arithmetic. It has not changed since
On 10/10/2014 10:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Oct 2014, at 23:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/9/2014 2:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-10-09 23:23 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com:
2014-10-09 22:02 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On 08 Oct 2014, at 23:16, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
the question is not if human can use nature's solution of an NP-
hard (or even a non computable analog function),
If nature can do it then there is no reason humans can't harness
On 09 Oct 2014, at 00:50, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Waouw, the great John Clark got it all... he knows everything in
nature is computable, that computationalism is true... and the
best, he doesn't need to prove it or provide an argument... it is
so self evident. I wonder why he didn't
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If nature can do it then there is no reason humans can't harness nature
to do it for us, but there is ZERO evidence that nature can solve NP
complete problems (much less non computable problems!) in polynomial time.
I agree for
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Waouw, the great John Clark got it all... he knows everything in
nature is computable
All the great John Clark knows is that as of today nobody anywhere has
presented one scrap of evidence that nature can solve non
2014-10-09 21:11 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
Waouw, the great John Clark got it all... he knows everything in
nature is computable
All the great John Clark knows is that as of today nobody anywhere
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
As of todays nobody has shown how consciousness works
And what reason do you have to believe that consciousness has anything to
do with solving NP complete problems in polynomial time?
John K Clark
--
You received
2014-10-09 22:02 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
As of todays nobody has shown how consciousness works
And what reason do you have to believe that consciousness has anything to
do with solving NP
2014-10-09 23:23 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com:
2014-10-09 22:02 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
As of todays nobody has shown how consciousness works
And what reason do you have to
On 10/9/2014 2:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-10-09 23:23 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com:
2014-10-09 22:02 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 , Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
And what reason do you have to believe that consciousness has anything
to do with solving NP complete problems in polynomial time?
I don't, and I didn't say that.
OK, so you don't have any reason to believe that consciousness
On 10/9/2014 7:24 PM, John Clark wrote:
NP problem *are* computable.
Yes, but not in polynomial time; our brains can't do it, our computers can't do it, and
there is not one scrap of evidence that nature can do it either.
There seems to be some confusion there. NP problems constitute
Le 10 oct. 2014 04:24, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 , Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
And what reason do you have to believe that consciousness has
anything to do with solving NP complete problems in polynomial time?
I don't, and I didn't say
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:36 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
NP problems constitute a *class *of problems of arbitrarial large inputs
and everyone of them can be solved in a finite time.
Yes.
When it is said that NP problems can't be solved in polynomial time that
refers to how
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
the question is not if human can use nature's solution of an NP-hard (or
even a non computable analog function),
If nature can do it then there is no reason humans can't harness nature to
do it for us, but there is ZERO evidence that
Waouw, the great John Clark got it all... he knows everything in nature
is computable, that computationalism is true... and the best, he doesn't
need to prove it or provide an argument... it is so self evident. I wonder
why he didn't get the Nobel prize.
Le 8 oct. 2014 23:16, John Clark
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Oct 2014, at 14:41, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 3:25 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This is why I find protein folding intriguing. I see the following
possibilities:
- Molecular
On 04 Oct 2014, at 07:03, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
As I've said no natural phenomenon has ever been found where
nature must solve a NP-hard problem
To solve it exactly?
Obviously exactly.
swarm of ants solves
On Saturday, October 4, 2014 6:03:44 AM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be
javascript: wrote:
As I've said no natural phenomenon has ever been found where nature must
solve a NP-hard problem
To solve it exactly?
Obviously
On 02 Oct 2014, at 20:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/2/2014 7:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
NP-hard problem are computable...
Yes.
they just take exponential time to solve.
Assuming that P ≠ NP, which is indeed judged very plausible by
all experts (but not all) in the field, but remains
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
As I've said no natural phenomenon has ever been found where nature
must solve a NP-hard problem to figure out what to do next,
Protein folding?
Although nobody has proven that protein folding is NP-hard I
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 6:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
As I've said no natural phenomenon has ever been found where nature must
solve a NP-hard problem to figure out what to do next,
Protein folding?
He uses anyway a bad example, NP-hard problem are computable
I
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
As I've said no natural phenomenon has ever been found where nature must
solve a NP-hard problem
To solve it exactly?
Obviously exactly.
swarm of ants solves efficaciously NP complete problem, like the
traveling
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 3:25 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This is why I find protein folding intriguing. I see the following
possibilities:
- Molecular interactions entail an immense computational power;
- P = NP;
- We are constantly winning at quantum suicide.
Am I missing
On 01 Oct 2014, at 15:36, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 01 Oct 2014, at 12:35, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-10-01 9:09 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com:
On 30 Sep 2014, at 19:32, John Clark
On 02 Oct 2014, at 03:25, meekerdb wrote:
This is why I find protein folding intriguing. I see the following
possibilities:
- Molecular interactions entail an immense computational power;
- P = NP;
- We are constantly winning at quantum suicide.
Am I missing something?
P=/=NP doesn't
On 02 Oct 2014, at 14:41, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 3:25 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This is why I find protein folding intriguing. I see the following
possibilities:
- Molecular interactions entail an immense computational power;
- P = NP;
- We are
On 10/2/2014 7:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
NP-hard problem are computable...
Yes.
they just take exponential time to solve.
Assuming that P ≠ NP, which is indeed judged very plausible by all experts
(but
not all) in the field, but remains still unproved today. It
On 30 Sep 2014, at 19:32, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Computationalism is the theory that the human brain is a computer, a
type information processing machine, and it postulates that thinking is
a
LizR skrev 2014-10-01 01:44:
On 1 October 2014 04:23, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com mailto:multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
Ultrafinitism then: set of all numbers is finite and whatever
weird logic they need to have numbers obey some weirder upper
limit, and I
2014-10-01 9:09 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com:
On 30 Sep 2014, at 19:32, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Computationalism is the theory that the human brain is a computer, a
type information
On 30 Sep 2014, at 02:19, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 06:45:51PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Sep 2014, at 02:22, Russell Standish wrote:
I introduced the term urstuff as a way of referring to what is
ontologically real. primitive urstuff is a tautology, of
On 30 Sep 2014, at 04:05, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 06:45:51PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Sep 2014, at 02:22, Russell Standish wrote:
I introduced the term urstuff as a
On 30 Sep 2014, at 19:32, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Computationalism is the theory that the human brain is a
computer, a type information processing machine, and it postulates
that thinking is a form of computing. But you
On 01 Oct 2014, at 09:09, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On 30 Sep 2014, at 19:32, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Computationalism is the theory that the human brain is a
computer, a type information processing
On 01 Oct 2014, at 09:23, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
LizR skrev 2014-10-01 01:44:
On 1 October 2014 04:23, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
wrote:
Ultrafinitism then: set of all numbers is finite and whatever
weird logic they need to have numbers obey some weirder upper
401 - 500 of 911 matches
Mail list logo
