Re: computationalism and supervenience

From: Bruno Marchal <>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:41:00 +0200

Le 27-août-06, à 12:43, Russell Standish a écrit :

> I recall reading this paper, and the followup entitled "The Random
> Oracle Hypothesis is False" by Chang et al.

Have you the reference? Do you know if Chang has found a math error, or
a conceptual mishandling? I would be interested to know.

>> From recollection though, the claim was of superior algorithmic
> performance (ie solving NP problems in P time) rather than solving
> uncomputable problems.

I doubt this very much, but I will check and let you know,


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Mon Aug 28 2006 - 10:34:56 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST