Le 24-mai-07, à 19:48, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh a écrit :
> Hi Bruno,
>
> Thank you for the information. I understand these parts for the others
> it seems I need to search in archives of the
> list for some keywords that I do not understand. I'm not an old
> member.
No problem. You can always ask. A mailing list is done for that. In the
worst case where you ask for some explanation which I have already
given ten thousand times, I will either provide links, or ... ask you
to wait for the ten thousand and one explanation.
> I just wanted to say, most of links in
> your page lead to nowhere!(Error), It would be nice if you fix them.
I should have updated it since a long time. My old software doesn't
work since macOS-10, and I'm tired to buy always the same soft. Also I
have to remind my password. I was hoping to change my web-page before'
goinf to Siena, but June is the exam period and I am not sure I will be
able to do that. Sorry.
Bruno
>
> Mohsen Ravanbakhsh
>
> On 5/23/07, Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>> Hi Mohsen,
>>
>> Le 22-mai-07, à 12:20, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh a écrit :
>>
>>
>> > Hi Bruno,
>> >
>> > My sixth sens says you're talking about something important :) but I
>> > don't get it.
>>
>>
>> Note that it could help me if you could be a little more specific. OK
>> I
>> see another post of you.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > It could have been of much more interest, if you could elaborate, or
>> > provide us with some references for each part of your
>>
>>
>> So you are able to make sense of the fact that
>> [LOGIC+ADDITION+MULTIPLICATION] gives already a Universal Turing
>> Machine. This is no more astosnishing than the fact that the K and S
>> combinators provides already turing-universality, or that the Conway
>> Game of Life is already turing universal.
>> The advantage of [LOGIC+ADDITION+MULTIPLICATION] is that (universal)
>> computability is seen as a particular case of provability.
>>
>> What is more long to explain in details is that
>> [LOGIC+ADDITION+MULTIPLICATION + INDUCTION] is already lobian. But I
>> will first look to your other post which title refer to
>> incompleteness.
>>
>>
>>
>> > argument.(Beginning from the 'OBVIOUS IMPORTANT QUESTION' it
>> > becomesvague for me)
>>
>>
>> The key point consists in understanding the difference between
>> computability/simulability and provability. I will come back on this,
>> but the idea is that, assuming comp, I can simulate Einstein's brain
>> exactly, and still not share his beliefs. Similarly the very non
>> powerful Little-Robinson-arithmetic can simulate rich theories like
>> PEANO or ZF, but cannot prove the theorem of PA or ZF.
>>
>> For example PA can prove that ZF can prove the consistency of PA, yet,
>> PA cannot prove the consistency of PA.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mohsen Ravanbakhsh,
> Sharif University of Technology,
> Tehran.
> >
>
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Fri May 25 2007 - 09:07:40 PDT