From: Marc Geddes (marc_geddes@yahoo.co.nz)
Date: Tue Aug 17 2004 - 00:58:42 MDT
--- Christian Szegedy <szegedy@or.uni-bonn.de> wrote:
> >
> There are methamatically definable functions that
> are
> not Turing computable. For example the function
> defined by the halting problem is a well-known
> example
> for that:
> Let T be a fixed universal Turing machine. For a
> sequence
> s of bits let f(s)=true if T stops on input s, false
> otherwise.
> Function f is clearly well-defined, and it is simple
> to see that
> it is not Turing computable.
>
*Sigh* Yes I am very well aware of this very basic
fact. Read what I said again. Note my use of the
word 'FINITE' in my paragraph.
Those so-called 'uncomputable' functions are totally
misinterpreted by ameuter science writers and
arm-chair philosophers.
All the word 'uncomputable' really means in the
technical sense is that the mathematical function in
question has infinite (or trans-finite) complexity.
This is purely an artifact of human defintions - an
infinite array of what are actually *finite* entirely
computable functions have simply all been lumped
together and misinterpreted by humans as a 'single'
function.
Any finite section of those so-called 'uncomputable'
functions are in fact totally computable. So we can
in fact compute the function to any desired degree of
accuracy. That is all we need.
=====
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- Gen. John Stark
"The Universe...or nothing!"
-H.G.Wells
Please visit my web-sites.
Science-Fiction and Fantasy: http://www.prometheuscrack.com
Science, A.I, Maths : http://www.riemannai.org
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 21 2006 - 04:22:43 MST