<shymath...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 3, 6:31 am, David C. Ullrich <dullr...@sprynet.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:00:33 -0800 (PST), Charlie-Boo
>> <shymath...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Nov 2, 10:29 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote: >> >> Charlie-Boo <shymath...@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.
(That was of course a typo for "in just five words".)
>Actually, it can be kinda valuable
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.
>> >> "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 -
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.)
On Nov 1, 12:10 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote:
> Charlie-Boo <shymath...@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 wrote: > On Nov 1, 12:10 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote: >> Charlie-Boo <shymath...@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.
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:29:19 -0800 (PST), Charlie-Boo
> <shymath...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 3, 6:31 am, David C. Ullrich <dullr...@sprynet.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:00:33 -0800 (PST), Charlie-Boo
> >> <shymath...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Nov 2, 10:29 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote: > >> >> Charlie-Boo <shymath...@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.
> >> (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 -
|
