Re: Diagonalization (solution-sequel)

From: Tom Caylor <>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:58:25 -0700

Tom Caylor wrote:
> OK. I noticed that you can get the Universal Machine (UM) to run for
> ever even without the "+ 1". If I think of the program for G as a big
> "case statement" with cases 1, 2, 3, to infinity, then the case for k
> will contain the code for, or better yet a call to (hence the name
> "recursive"?), Fk(k), but if we state by defining even G = Fn(n) (even
> without the "+ 1") then this is equivalent to calling G(k)... But then
> when we call G(k) we end up back in the "k case" again, calling G(k)
> again,... forever. This will happen even if we add the "+ 1".
> Personally I like this argument (running forever) better than the 0 = 1
> argument that somehow concludes that the UM will crash. A UM
> "crashing" to me brings up pictures of physical machines that recognize
> an unallowed operation, and then stop themselves.

And on the surface, it seems that the "running forever because of
self-reference" argument is better because you don't need the "+ 1".
It seems that it isn't the "+ 1" that makes the UM run forever, and
conversely the UM runs forever even without the contradiction of 0 = 1.


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 Jul 10 2006 - 18:59:27 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:11 PST