 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Logic Forum » Characterization of a Programming Language (Base of... |
|
Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Charlie-Boo... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 1:02 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi... at (no spam) uta.fi> wrote:
[quote]Charlie-Boo <shymath... at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
On Nov 2, 10:29 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi... at (no spam) uta.fi> wrote:
Who knows? I agree it's very sad when people in news debates stoop to
the level of comparing others to terrorists.
Because you are both psychotic?
Who are you talking about?
[/quote]
Your Dissociative Identity Disorder.
C-B
[quote]--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensi... at (no spam) uta.fi)
"Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Aatu Koskensilta... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Charlie-Boo <shymathguy at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
[quote]The argument is so trivial that it does not relate to the notion of
defining a Base of Computing.
[/quote]
The sad fact is that you clearly don't understand the result alluded to,
characterising acceptable indexings. In another message you suggested
it's pointless to debate "psychopaths and abusive people". Taking this
kind advice to heart, I now beat a hasty retreat, once again leaving you
to your unperturbed, free to carry on with your lofty undertaking of
axiomatising all of computability theory and churning out an endless
stream of exciting theorems of CBL. Good luck!
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta at (no spam) uta.fi)
"Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Aatu Koskensilta... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Charlie-Boo <shymathguy at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
[quote]Show how I am wrong when I say that his argument applies to ANY
numbering of ANY functions, not just an acceptable numbering of
recursive functions.
[/quote]
Well, you could just try to understand the result at issue. It doesn't
merely establish that the enumeration theorem and the parametrisation
theorems hold for acceptable indexings.
[quote]It IS truly sad, Atta. You once actually posted technical points that
contributed to discussions. What went wrong? How did you get so
lost?
[/quote]
Who knows? I agree it's very sad when people in news debates stoop to
the level of comparing others to terrorists.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta at (no spam) uta.fi)
"Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Aatu Koskensilta... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Charlie-Boo <shymathguy at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
[quote]On Nov 2, 10:29 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi... at (no spam) uta.fi> wrote:
Who knows? I agree it's very sad when people in news debates stoop to
the level of comparing others to terrorists.
Because you are both psychotic?
[/quote]
Who are you talking about?
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta at (no spam) uta.fi)
"Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Aatu Koskensilta... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Charlie-Boo <shymathguy at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
[quote]On Nov 2, 1:02 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi... at (no spam) uta.fi> wrote:
Charlie-Boo <shymath... at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
On Nov 2, 10:29 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi... at (no spam) uta.fi> wrote:
Who knows? I agree it's very sad when people in news debates stoop to
the level of comparing others to terrorists.
Because you are both psychotic?
Who are you talking about?
Your Dissociative Identity Disorder.
[/quote]
What are you talking about?
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta at (no spam) uta.fi)
"Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Charlie-Boo... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 10:29 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi... at (no spam) uta.fi> wrote:
[quote]Charlie-Boo <shymath... at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
Show how I am wrong when I say that his argument applies to ANY
numbering of ANY functions, not just an acceptable numbering of
recursive functions.
Well, you could just try to understand the result at issue. It doesn't
merely establish that the enumeration theorem and the parametrisation
theorems hold for acceptable indexings.
It IS truly sad, Atta. You once actually posted technical points that
contributed to discussions. What went wrong? How did you get so
lost?
Who knows? I agree it's very sad when people in news debates stoop to
the level of comparing others to terrorists.
[/quote]
I appreciate the reference to Rogers, but beyond that, you speak of
only silly things.
And the truth is, Rogers does not provide a self-contained (ergo
simple) definition of a Base of Computing. He refers to (relies on)
Godel's (huge) definition of using Logic to define the r.e. sets (a
wff with a free variable represents the set of numbers that when
substituted for the free variable form a provable wff.)
My definitions do not refer to any Base of Computing - it is self-
contained and simple.
If you want to refer to the literature, then find very simple bases -
not ones that include (by reference in the definition) big messy
formalizations like Godel's. (Godel's intent was to formalize
observations about Logic, not to develop the simplest possible base.
He uses Logic - which is not simple - because his interest is in
Logic.)
For example, Combinatory Logic is one of the simplest known bases.
Also, Wolfram is said to have a simple base in his book.
But then note that their bases are still procedural - and I am
attempting to use (am using) only "descriptive" definition - you have
a relation that has certain properties, and infer that it is a base.
That is the challenge.
C-B
[quote]--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensi... at (no spam) uta.fi)
"Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David C. Ullrich... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:00:33 -0800 (PST), Charlie-Boo
<shymathguy at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 10:29 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi... at (no spam) uta.fi> wrote:
Charlie-Boo <shymath... at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
Show how I am wrong when I say that his argument applies to ANY
numbering of ANY functions, not just an acceptable numbering of
recursive functions.
Well, you could just try to understand the result at issue. It doesn't
merely establish that the enumeration theorem and the parametrisation
theorems hold for acceptable indexings.
But "acceptable indexing" is his term, not existing and with no
established significance. What is the point or value of referring to
something that someone just made up with no justification?
So you say "There exist things that it does other than these quasi-
theorems." but again give no basis, a continuation of your psychosis.
And you offer no refutation of my results, no matter how detailed and
eplicit I make them.
It IS truly sad, Atta. You once actually posted technical points that
contributed to discussions. What went wrong? How did you get so
lost?
Who knows? I agree it's very sad when people in news debates stoop to
the level of comparing others to terrorists.
Because you are both psychotic?
[/quote]
Wow - you got him there, Charlie!
Very impressive, making the transition from dumb
as a brick, in a "no, if something is not spelled out
in words of one syllable then it doesn't exist" sort
of way, to simply pathetic is just five words.
[quote]C-B
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensi... at (no spam) uta.fi)
"Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
[/quote]
David C. Ullrich
"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Charlie-Boo... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 6:31 am, David C. Ullrich <dullr... at (no spam) sprynet.com> wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:00:33 -0800 (PST), Charlie-Boo
shymath... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 10:29 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi... at (no spam) uta.fi> wrote:
Charlie-Boo <shymath... at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
Show how I am wrong when I say that his argument applies to ANY
numbering of ANY functions, not just an acceptable numbering of
recursive functions.
Well, you could just try to understand the result at issue. It doesn't
merely establish that the enumeration theorem and the parametrisation
theorems hold for acceptable indexings.
But "acceptable indexing" is his term, not existing and with no
established significance. What is the point or value of referring to
something that someone just made up with no justification?
So you say "There exist things that it does other than these quasi-
theorems." but again give no basis, a continuation of your psychosis.
And you offer no refutation of my results, no matter how detailed and
eplicit I make them.
It IS truly sad, Atta. You once actually posted technical points that
contributed to discussions. What went wrong? How did you get so
lost?
Who knows? I agree it's very sad when people in news debates stoop to
the level of comparing others to terrorists.
Because you are both psychotic?
Wow - you got him there, Charlie!
Very impressive, making the transition from dumb
as a brick, in a "no, if something is not spelled out
in words of one syllable then it doesn't exist" sort
of way, to simply pathetic is just five words.
C-B
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensi... at (no spam) uta.fi)
"Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
David C. Ullrich
"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
[/quote]
What is the purpose of providing any proof if not for people to read
it and follow through the logic? Speaking of stupid.
[quote](John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Charlie-Boo... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 6:31 am, David C. Ullrich <dullr... at (no spam) sprynet.com> wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:00:33 -0800 (PST), Charlie-Boo
shymath... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 10:29 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi... at (no spam) uta.fi> wrote:
Charlie-Boo <shymath... at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
Show how I am wrong when I say that his argument applies to ANY
numbering of ANY functions, not just an acceptable numbering of
recursive functions.
Well, you could just try to understand the result at issue. It doesn't
merely establish that the enumeration theorem and the parametrisation
theorems hold for acceptable indexings.
But "acceptable indexing" is his term, not existing and with no
established significance. What is the point or value of referring to
something that someone just made up with no justification?
So you say "There exist things that it does other than these quasi-
theorems." but again give no basis, a continuation of your psychosis.
And you offer no refutation of my results, no matter how detailed and
eplicit I make them.
It IS truly sad, Atta. You once actually posted technical points that
contributed to discussions. What went wrong? How did you get so
lost?
Who knows? I agree it's very sad when people in news debates stoop to
the level of comparing others to terrorists.
Because you are both psychotic?
Wow - you got him there, Charlie!
Very impressive, making the transition from dumb
as a brick, in a "no, if something is not spelled out
in words of one syllable then it doesn't exist" sort
of way, to simply pathetic is just five words.
[/quote]
Actually, it can be kinda valuable
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12826
[quote]C-B
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensi... at (no spam) uta.fi)
"Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
David C. Ullrich
"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David C. Ullrich... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:29:19 -0800 (PST), Charlie-Boo
<shymathguy at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 6:31 am, David C. Ullrich <dullr... at (no spam) sprynet.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:00:33 -0800 (PST), Charlie-Boo
shymath... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 10:29 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi... at (no spam) uta.fi> wrote:
Charlie-Boo <shymath... at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
Show how I am wrong when I say that his argument applies to ANY
numbering of ANY functions, not just an acceptable numbering of
recursive functions.
Well, you could just try to understand the result at issue. It doesn't
merely establish that the enumeration theorem and the parametrisation
theorems hold for acceptable indexings.
But "acceptable indexing" is his term, not existing and with no
established significance. What is the point or value of referring to
something that someone just made up with no justification?
So you say "There exist things that it does other than these quasi-
theorems." but again give no basis, a continuation of your psychosis.
And you offer no refutation of my results, no matter how detailed and
eplicit I make them.
It IS truly sad, Atta. You once actually posted technical points that
contributed to discussions. What went wrong? How did you get so
lost?
Who knows? I agree it's very sad when people in news debates stoop to
the level of comparing others to terrorists.
Because you are both psychotic?
Wow - you got him there, Charlie!
Very impressive, making the transition from dumb
as a brick, in a "no, if something is not spelled out
in words of one syllable then it doesn't exist" sort
of way, to simply pathetic is just five words.
C-B
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensi... at (no spam) uta.fi)
"Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
David C. Ullrich
"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
What is the purpose of providing any proof if not for people to read
it and follow through the logic? Speaking of stupid.
[/quote]
Once again, this is very impressive. See, that's not something
I said, it's something someone else said. Yes, it's stupid.
I mean duh, look at the attribution:
[quote](John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
David C. Ullrich
"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David C. Ullrich... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:39:11 -0800 (PST), Charlie-Boo
<shymathguy at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 6:31 am, David C. Ullrich <dullr... at (no spam) sprynet.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:00:33 -0800 (PST), Charlie-Boo
shymath... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 10:29 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi... at (no spam) uta.fi> wrote:
Charlie-Boo <shymath... at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
Show how I am wrong when I say that his argument applies to ANY
numbering of ANY functions, not just an acceptable numbering of
recursive functions.
Well, you could just try to understand the result at issue. It doesn't
merely establish that the enumeration theorem and the parametrisation
theorems hold for acceptable indexings.
But "acceptable indexing" is his term, not existing and with no
established significance. What is the point or value of referring to
something that someone just made up with no justification?
So you say "There exist things that it does other than these quasi-
theorems." but again give no basis, a continuation of your psychosis.
And you offer no refutation of my results, no matter how detailed and
eplicit I make them.
It IS truly sad, Atta. You once actually posted technical points that
contributed to discussions. What went wrong? How did you get so
lost?
Who knows? I agree it's very sad when people in news debates stoop to
the level of comparing others to terrorists.
Because you are both psychotic?
Wow - you got him there, Charlie!
Very impressive, making the transition from dumb
as a brick, in a "no, if something is not spelled out
in words of one syllable then it doesn't exist" sort
of way, to simply pathetic is just five words.
[/quote]
(That was of course a typo for "in just five words".)
[quote]Actually, it can be kinda valuable
[/quote]
Erm, what can be kinda valuable? Either you're saying
being dumb as a brick can be kinda valuable, being
simply pathetic can be kinda valuable, or you're not
replying to anything I said.
[quote]http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12826
C-B
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensi... at (no spam) uta.fi)
"Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
David C. Ullrich
"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
David C. Ullrich
"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Marshall... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 12:10 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi... at (no spam) uta.fi> wrote:
[quote]Charlie-Boo <shymath... at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
The point is to define a Base of Computing (Roger calls an Acceptable
Indexing) self-contained (no reference to another Base of Computing)
in as simple a manner as possible, as I describe in the last
paragraph. Rogers does not.
Did you by any chance notice a little result relating acceptable
indexings to the enumeration and parametrisation theorems? Did you ever
actually /read/ (in the ordinary sense of the word) any of the 300 books
you say you have?
[/quote]
Could I perhaps ask you to summarize what that result is?
It sounds interesting, but I still have to get through those
last two books I bought from your recommendation, so I'm
not likely to tackle Rogers any time soon.
Although I cannot boast the same credentials as Charlie, I can
say that I have read a book of over 300 pages.
Marshall |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Herman Jurjus... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Marshall wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 12:10 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi... at (no spam) uta.fi> wrote:
Charlie-Boo <shymath... at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
The point is to define a Base of Computing (Roger calls an Acceptable
Indexing) self-contained (no reference to another Base of Computing)
in as simple a manner as possible, as I describe in the last
paragraph. Rogers does not.
Did you by any chance notice a little result relating acceptable
indexings to the enumeration and parametrisation theorems? Did you ever
actually /read/ (in the ordinary sense of the word) any of the 300 books
you say you have?
Could I perhaps ask you to summarize what that result is?
It sounds interesting, but I still have to get through those
last two books I bought from your recommendation, so I'm
not likely to tackle Rogers any time soon.
Although I cannot boast the same credentials as Charlie, I can
say that I have read a book of over 300 pages.
Marshall
[/quote]
Perhaps the following helps:
http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~cis511/cis51108sl10.pdf
(Found via Google, btw.)
--
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Charlie-Boo... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 6:11 am, David C. Ullrich <dullr... at (no spam) sprynet.com> wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:29:19 -0800 (PST), Charlie-Boo
shymath... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 6:31 am, David C. Ullrich <dullr... at (no spam) sprynet.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:00:33 -0800 (PST), Charlie-Boo
shymath... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 10:29 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi... at (no spam) uta.fi> wrote:
Charlie-Boo <shymath... at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
Show how I am wrong when I say that his argument applies to ANY
numbering of ANY functions, not just an acceptable numbering of
recursive functions.
Well, you could just try to understand the result at issue. It doesn't
merely establish that the enumeration theorem and the parametrisation
theorems hold for acceptable indexings.
But "acceptable indexing" is his term, not existing and with no
established significance. What is the point or value of referring to
something that someone just made up with no justification?
So you say "There exist things that it does other than these quasi-
theorems." but again give no basis, a continuation of your psychosis.
And you offer no refutation of my results, no matter how detailed and
eplicit I make them.
It IS truly sad, Atta. You once actually posted technical points that
contributed to discussions. What went wrong? How did you get so
lost?
Who knows? I agree it's very sad when people in news debates stoop to
the level of comparing others to terrorists.
Because you are both psychotic?
Wow - you got him there, Charlie!
Very impressive, making the transition from dumb
as a brick, in a "no, if something is not spelled out
in words of one syllable then it doesn't exist" sort
of way, to simply pathetic is just five words.
C-B
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensi... at (no spam) uta.fi)
"Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
David C. Ullrich
"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
What is the purpose of providing any proof if not for people to read
it and follow through the logic? Speaking of stupid.
Once again, this is very impressive. See, that's not something
I said, it's something someone else said. Yes, it's stupid.
[/quote]
Why would you display something that's stupid?
[quote]I mean duh, look at the attribution:
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
David C. Ullrich
"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Alan Smaill... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Charlie-Boo <shymathguy at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
[quote]Why would you display something that's stupid?
[/quote]
Because it's funny.
--
Alan Smaill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:42 am
|
|