Re: Penrose and algorithms

From: LauLuna <>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 07:17:58 -0700

On 29 jun, 02:13, "Jesse Mazer" <> wrote:
> LauLuna wrote:
> >For any Turing machine there is an equivalent axiomatic system;
> >whether we could construct it or not, is of no significance here.
> But for a simulation of a mathematician's brain, the axioms wouldn't be
> statements about arithmetic which we could inspect and judge whether they
> were true or false individually, they'd just be statements about the initial
> state and behavior of the simulated brain. So again, there'd be no way to
> inspect the system and feel perfectly confident the system would never
> output a false statement about arithmetic, unlike in the case of the
> axiomatic systems used by mathematicians to prove theorems.

Yes, but this is not the point. For any Turing machine performing
mathematical skills there is also an equivalent mathematical axiomatic
system; if we are sound Turing machines, then we could never know that
mathematical system sound, in spite that its axioms are the same we

And the impossibility has to be a logical impossibility, not merely a
technical or physical one since it depends on Gödel's theorem. That's
a bit odd, isn't it?


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 Fri Jun 29 2007 - 10:18:09 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:14 PST