From: Christian Szegedy (szegedy@or.uni-bonn.de)
Date: Wed Aug 18 2004 - 03:19:12 MDT
Marc Geddes wrote:
>All of those so-called 'uncomputable' maths functions
>are in fact computable to any degree of accuracy less
>than 100% (so we can in fact compute the functions
>with 95%, 99%, 99.9% or any degree of accuracy we
>desire less than 100%)
>
>Similairly, all of those so-called 'undecidable'
>truths in maths are in fact decidable to any
>confidence level less than 100% (so we could in fact
>produce a non-axiomatic probabilistic argument to
>achieve 95%, 99%, 99.9% or any degree of confidence we
>desire less than 100%)
>
>Make sense?
>
>
I would like to see your definition of "degree of accuracy" and
"degree of confidence". I seriously doubt that you can define it in a
sensible way so that you can arbitrarily approximate any
uncomputable function or mathematical statements.
To answar another post of you: computabilty does not make
sense for functions mapping finite sets to finite sets. It is
an empty notion and it has nothing to do with universal Turing
machines.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 21 2006 - 04:22:43 MST