Tom Caylor wrote:
>
>So apparently we are still missing something. You need to tell us
>*why* this is not the right reason. The set of instructions for g is
>precisely a big "case" statement (if you will) on n, like this:
>
>switch n:
>begin
>case 1:
>set of instructions for f1:
>case 2:
>set of instructions for f2:
>case 3:
>set of instructions for f3:
>...
>end (after an infinite number of cases)
>
>This is an infinitely long program. You need the whole program to
>define g, not just the portion you need for a given input. Is there a
>finite version of g? I don't see how.
>
>Tom
I haven't been following the all details of this discussion, so apologies if
I get things confused...but aren't those f1, f2, f3 etc. supposed to
correspond *only* to turing machine programs which actually halt and give
you a finite number as an output? If so, then although we can write down the
list of all possible turing machine programs, there is no way to figure out
which programs on this list correspond to one of your functions and which
don't without solving the halting problem.
Jesse
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Thu Jun 15 2006 - 15:05:05 PDT