- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:24:55 +0200

Hi all,

I suddenly feel sorry putting too much burden on just one

correspondent in the list, and I would appreciate if someone else

could propose answers or any remarks to the exercises.

I am also a bit anxious about Kim, who is the one who suggested me the

initial explanations, but who seems to have disappear right now.

There is also some sort of burden onto me, because it is hard to

explain "the real thing" concerning the seventh step, without

explaining or just illustrating at least some relevant portion of the

mathematical reality: mainly the unexpected mathematical discovery of

the universal functions, sets, numbers, systems, language, machine ...

I don't mention the absence of drawing ability which does not help.

Given that the list raised from a critical approach toward Tegmark and

Schmidhuber, I was usually assuming some knowledge in math and

physics. What was harder for me in the beginning was to motivate the

use of "philosophy of mind" notions, notably the key distinction

between the first and third person point of view. Then UDA should make

you realize how non obvious the relation between the first person and

the third person can be once we assume comp (= work in the theory

comp). My original goal was to illustrate that once we assume digital

mechanism, we can build a "scientific formulation" of the mind-body

problem or the consciousness-reality problem. We probably depart from

Tegmark and Schmidhuber, or Wolfram, by taking into account that

making comp explicit entails a delocalisation of the 1-person

relatively to the third person computations, and makes the identity

thesis, a most complex equivalence relations.

The knowledge of most people participating to the discussion is very

varied, due to the extreme transdiciplinarity of the subject, and the

interest it can evidently have for the layman (and indeed, for any

universal machine).

Marty asked me to make an attempt toward a "journalistic" description

of "how physics has to become part of number theory". This is very

difficult, and risky due to inevitable misunderstanding.

And I feel like I have to explain in what deep sense the mathematical

discovery of the "universal machine", made by Post, Turing, ... is

already a quite utterly astonishing, yet subtle, discovery. Gödel

himself took time to swallow it and he described Church thesis as an

epistemological miracle.

My intention was to derive properly Cantor theorem, and then Kleene

theorem, which was the object of my old "diagonalization posts".

I feel important that people understand how unbelievable Church thesis

is, and why most startling propositions, including incompleteness, are

easy consequences of it.

Typically I am happy to share my enthusiasm about all theorems in

computer science which leads to the reversal, but knowing myself I

know that I could accelerate too much and makes too much burden for

the correspondent especially if he is alone.

So before becoming an harasser myself I invite Marty to let other

people trying to answer the exercises.

Marty has fully agreed to this proposal and is happy the pressure is

off him to represent all those who are following anonymously.

Eventually I can show the solution and proceed in addressing the post

to everyone.

Note that this is what I have done with the combinators, feedback were

made out-of-line, then. But this lead to difficulties too. I cannot

solve all the exercise out-of-line. By experience this ends up with

finding myself writing too many posts with almost the same info to

different people.

Yet I can imagine how much it is to be the only public target of what

could look like an perpetual exam, and I really want to proceed in a

cooler way.

Some people have encouraged me, out-of-line, to proceed, but now I

think they should participate a little bit, if only to witness they

are following the thread. I will probably stop to propose "easy" (a

quite relative notion) exercise, but then it is important to stop me

once anything is unclear. This is a problem with math, if you miss a

piece, everything becomes senseless.

Understanding implies some self-implication in the reasoning. So,

either someone else try to participate, or I continue impersonally and

eventually I will try some "non technical summary". I recall that one

of the goal consists in explaining the difference between a

computation and a description of a computation (beyond just doing the

step 7).

Any remark to improve the communication or to design a better

methodology is welcome,

Best regards to all of you, and thanks for letting me know your

interests,

Bruno

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 Jul 10 2009 - 22:24:55 PDT

Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:24:55 +0200

Hi all,

I suddenly feel sorry putting too much burden on just one

correspondent in the list, and I would appreciate if someone else

could propose answers or any remarks to the exercises.

I am also a bit anxious about Kim, who is the one who suggested me the

initial explanations, but who seems to have disappear right now.

There is also some sort of burden onto me, because it is hard to

explain "the real thing" concerning the seventh step, without

explaining or just illustrating at least some relevant portion of the

mathematical reality: mainly the unexpected mathematical discovery of

the universal functions, sets, numbers, systems, language, machine ...

I don't mention the absence of drawing ability which does not help.

Given that the list raised from a critical approach toward Tegmark and

Schmidhuber, I was usually assuming some knowledge in math and

physics. What was harder for me in the beginning was to motivate the

use of "philosophy of mind" notions, notably the key distinction

between the first and third person point of view. Then UDA should make

you realize how non obvious the relation between the first person and

the third person can be once we assume comp (= work in the theory

comp). My original goal was to illustrate that once we assume digital

mechanism, we can build a "scientific formulation" of the mind-body

problem or the consciousness-reality problem. We probably depart from

Tegmark and Schmidhuber, or Wolfram, by taking into account that

making comp explicit entails a delocalisation of the 1-person

relatively to the third person computations, and makes the identity

thesis, a most complex equivalence relations.

The knowledge of most people participating to the discussion is very

varied, due to the extreme transdiciplinarity of the subject, and the

interest it can evidently have for the layman (and indeed, for any

universal machine).

Marty asked me to make an attempt toward a "journalistic" description

of "how physics has to become part of number theory". This is very

difficult, and risky due to inevitable misunderstanding.

And I feel like I have to explain in what deep sense the mathematical

discovery of the "universal machine", made by Post, Turing, ... is

already a quite utterly astonishing, yet subtle, discovery. Gödel

himself took time to swallow it and he described Church thesis as an

epistemological miracle.

My intention was to derive properly Cantor theorem, and then Kleene

theorem, which was the object of my old "diagonalization posts".

I feel important that people understand how unbelievable Church thesis

is, and why most startling propositions, including incompleteness, are

easy consequences of it.

Typically I am happy to share my enthusiasm about all theorems in

computer science which leads to the reversal, but knowing myself I

know that I could accelerate too much and makes too much burden for

the correspondent especially if he is alone.

So before becoming an harasser myself I invite Marty to let other

people trying to answer the exercises.

Marty has fully agreed to this proposal and is happy the pressure is

off him to represent all those who are following anonymously.

Eventually I can show the solution and proceed in addressing the post

to everyone.

Note that this is what I have done with the combinators, feedback were

made out-of-line, then. But this lead to difficulties too. I cannot

solve all the exercise out-of-line. By experience this ends up with

finding myself writing too many posts with almost the same info to

different people.

Yet I can imagine how much it is to be the only public target of what

could look like an perpetual exam, and I really want to proceed in a

cooler way.

Some people have encouraged me, out-of-line, to proceed, but now I

think they should participate a little bit, if only to witness they

are following the thread. I will probably stop to propose "easy" (a

quite relative notion) exercise, but then it is important to stop me

once anything is unclear. This is a problem with math, if you miss a

piece, everything becomes senseless.

Understanding implies some self-implication in the reasoning. So,

either someone else try to participate, or I continue impersonally and

eventually I will try some "non technical summary". I recall that one

of the goal consists in explaining the difference between a

computation and a description of a computation (beyond just doing the

step 7).

Any remark to improve the communication or to design a better

methodology is welcome,

Best regards to all of you, and thanks for letting me know your

interests,

Bruno

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 Jul 10 2009 - 22:24:55 PDT

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