Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #49506 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-05-02 16:47 +0100 |
| Last post | 2022-05-06 11:54 +0300 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 215 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-02 16:47 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 11:18 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-02 17:39 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 15:28 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-03 00:10 +0100
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 21:07 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-04 15:16 +0100
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 14:27 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-05 01:59 +0100
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 20:19 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-05 03:28 +0100
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 21:55 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 19:59 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 22:09 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-04 21:17 -0600
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 22:35 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-04 21:38 -0600
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 22:42 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 20:50 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 22:58 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 21:07 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 23:48 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-05 07:51 -0400
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-05 07:50 -0400
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 04:57 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 13:01 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 11:03 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 13:45 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 11:50 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 16:43 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 20:20 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 22:38 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 20:43 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 22:54 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 21:12 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 23:49 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 04:54 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 11:12 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 09:20 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 13:32 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-05 07:56 -0400
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-05 07:54 -0400
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 05:27 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-05 14:14 +0100
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 16:53 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 15:11 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 17:31 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-05 22:43 -0400
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 12:17 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 10:28 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 13:39 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 11:52 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 16:47 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 15:06 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 17:28 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 15:42 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 20:06 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 18:17 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 20:36 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 18:59 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 21:08 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 19:18 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 21:33 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 19:50 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 01:35 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-06 07:52 -0400
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-05 20:51 -0600
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 14:07 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 13:14 -0600
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 14:29 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-05 07:46 -0400
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-05 14:29 +0100
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 17:12 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-05-06 02:58 +0200
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 20:01 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-05-06 03:34 +0200
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-06 03:35 +0100
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 21:57 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 22:29 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-06 12:36 +0100
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 11:33 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-07 02:57 +0100
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 21:22 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-08 00:01 +0100
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-07 18:45 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-08 00:59 +0100
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-07 12:31 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 23:48 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-05 23:01 -0600
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 00:12 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 07:36 -0600
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 10:32 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 09:43 -0600
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 11:45 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 11:01 -0600
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 13:03 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 12:18 -0600
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 13:50 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 13:05 -0600
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 14:19 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 13:23 -0600
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 14:34 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 13:37 -0600
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 14:48 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-07 00:47 +0100
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 18:59 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-07 03:04 +0100
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 21:26 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 23:03 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 00:55 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-05 22:51 -0400
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-06 12:42 +0300
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 14:09 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-03 12:36 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 04:08 -0700
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 09:33 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 09:41 -0700
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 11:57 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-03 12:53 -0600
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-03 13:02 -0600
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-03 19:59 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 14:05 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 14:51 -0700
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-03 16:06 -0600
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 17:15 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 17:11 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-04 12:04 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-05-04 14:04 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-04 14:48 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-05-04 00:21 +0200
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 17:40 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-05-04 00:46 +0200
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 17:49 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-05-04 01:05 +0200
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 18:48 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-04 12:15 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 11:24 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-04 18:51 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 09:38 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-03 20:17 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 13:06 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-04 10:19 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 12:57 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-04 18:53 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-05 12:37 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 12:52 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-06 12:23 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 14:14 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-07 11:42 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-07 11:16 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-08 11:21 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 10:41 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-09 19:45 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 12:11 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-09 19:21 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-10 10:34 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 13:13 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-03 21:58 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-02 18:32 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-02 23:38 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-02 18:46 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-02 23:47 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-02 19:16 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-03 00:30 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-02 20:40 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-03 20:06 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 14:17 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-05-04 00:23 +0200
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-04 12:24 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-03 21:54 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-04 17:40 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 12:46 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-04 19:23 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 19:35 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-02 20:48 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) wij wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 05:12 -0700
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 09:31 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 07:47 -0700
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 10:19 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 08:36 -0700
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 11:39 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 14:49 -0700
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 17:08 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 15:21 -0700
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 17:32 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-03 21:47 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-03 12:31 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 09:42 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-03 20:27 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 13:13 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-03 21:38 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-09 19:58 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 12:16 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-09 19:30 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 08:40 -0700
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-03 21:41 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-03 19:26 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-04 10:31 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 13:09 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-08 11:09 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 10:39 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-09 19:48 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 12:12 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-05 12:19 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-05 17:54 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-05 22:56 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-06 11:50 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 12:46 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-05 21:00 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 17:16 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-06 02:21 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 20:37 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-06 03:46 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-05 18:41 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-06 11:54 +0300
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-03 19:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220503195939.00002080@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #49568 |
On Tue, 3 May 2022 11:57:39 -0500 olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/3/2022 11:41 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > On Tuesday, 3 May 2022 at 15:33:45 UTC+1, olcott wrote: > >> On 5/3/2022 6:08 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, 3 May 2022 at 10:36:48 UTC+1, Mikko wrote: > >>>> On 2022-05-02 16:18:36 +0000, olcott said: > >>>> > >>>>> It seems to me that all infinitely recursive definitions are > >>>>> invalid and I am having an excellent dialogue with some Prolog > >>>>> folks about this in comp.lang.prolog. > >>>> One of the rules that define Prolog language is > >>>> > >>>> arguments ::= argument | argument "," arguments > >>>> > >>>> which is infinitely recursive. Is it invalid? Is Prolog invalid > >>>> because of this and other infinitely recursive rules? > >>>> > >>> Kind of. > >>> A Prolog program is a physical object, not a mathematical object, > >>> so the recursion has to terminate somewhere. > >>> But it might lead you into strange territory if you tried to > >>> define the result of passing an ininite argument list to some > >>> Prolog. > > >> Even infinitely recursive math expressions are semantically > >> incorrect in that they can never be evaluated. > >> > > What's e ^ (PI * i) ? > > > > e is Euler's number. > > PI is the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference > > i is the square root of -1. > > > > I don't buy into the whole imaginary numbers game. > We could imagine that 2 + 3 = 17 and call that an imaginary sum. > > That is not an infinitely recursive math expression. > It is a math expression that can be evaluated on the basis of the > numerical constants specified by e, PI and i. That it cannot be > resolved to a finite string of digits does not make it invalid. It evaluates to -1, so is a finite string of digits. Google Euler's Identity. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-03 14:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t4rue1$qcj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49587 |
On 5/3/2022 1:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Tue, 3 May 2022 11:57:39 -0500 > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 5/3/2022 11:41 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On Tuesday, 3 May 2022 at 15:33:45 UTC+1, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/3/2022 6:08 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, 3 May 2022 at 10:36:48 UTC+1, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2022-05-02 16:18:36 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems to me that all infinitely recursive definitions are >>>>>>> invalid and I am having an excellent dialogue with some Prolog >>>>>>> folks about this in comp.lang.prolog. >>>>>> One of the rules that define Prolog language is >>>>>> >>>>>> arguments ::= argument | argument "," arguments >>>>>> >>>>>> which is infinitely recursive. Is it invalid? Is Prolog invalid >>>>>> because of this and other infinitely recursive rules? >>>>>> >>>>> Kind of. >>>>> A Prolog program is a physical object, not a mathematical object, >>>>> so the recursion has to terminate somewhere. >>>>> But it might lead you into strange territory if you tried to >>>>> define the result of passing an ininite argument list to some >>>>> Prolog. >> >>>> Even infinitely recursive math expressions are semantically >>>> incorrect in that they can never be evaluated. >>>> >>> What's e ^ (PI * i) ? >>> >>> e is Euler's number. >>> PI is the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference >>> i is the square root of -1. >>> >> >> I don't buy into the whole imaginary numbers game. >> We could imagine that 2 + 3 = 17 and call that an imaginary sum. >> >> That is not an infinitely recursive math expression. >> It is a math expression that can be evaluated on the basis of the >> numerical constants specified by e, PI and i. That it cannot be >> resolved to a finite string of digits does not make it invalid. > > It evaluates to -1, so is a finite string of digits. Google Euler's > Identity. > > /Flibble > Nice to know, thanks. Thus your rebuttal seems complete it is not an infinite anything. Imagining the square root of a negative number or that parallel lines meet seems a little nuts to me. We might as well imagine that a cat is an office building and the ask: What should we feed this imaginary cat. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-03 14:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <38827e35-2255-457f-9346-30dd1986c770n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #49589 |
On Tuesday, 3 May 2022 at 20:05:39 UTC+1, olcott wrote: > On 5/3/2022 1:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > > On Tue, 3 May 2022 11:57:39 -0500 > > olcott <polc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 5/3/2022 11:41 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, 3 May 2022 at 15:33:45 UTC+1, olcott wrote: > >>>> On 5/3/2022 6:08 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, 3 May 2022 at 10:36:48 UTC+1, Mikko wrote: > >>>>>> On 2022-05-02 16:18:36 +0000, olcott said: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> It seems to me that all infinitely recursive definitions are > >>>>>>> invalid and I am having an excellent dialogue with some Prolog > >>>>>>> folks about this in comp.lang.prolog. > >>>>>> One of the rules that define Prolog language is > >>>>>> > >>>>>> arguments ::= argument | argument "," arguments > >>>>>> > >>>>>> which is infinitely recursive. Is it invalid? Is Prolog invalid > >>>>>> because of this and other infinitely recursive rules? > >>>>>> > >>>>> Kind of. > >>>>> A Prolog program is a physical object, not a mathematical object, > >>>>> so the recursion has to terminate somewhere. > >>>>> But it might lead you into strange territory if you tried to > >>>>> define the result of passing an ininite argument list to some > >>>>> Prolog. > >> > >>>> Even infinitely recursive math expressions are semantically > >>>> incorrect in that they can never be evaluated. > >>>> > >>> What's e ^ (PI * i) ? > >>> > >>> e is Euler's number. > >>> PI is the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference > >>> i is the square root of -1. > >>> > >> > >> I don't buy into the whole imaginary numbers game. > >> We could imagine that 2 + 3 = 17 and call that an imaginary sum. > >> > >> That is not an infinitely recursive math expression. > >> It is a math expression that can be evaluated on the basis of the > >> numerical constants specified by e, PI and i. That it cannot be > >> resolved to a finite string of digits does not make it invalid. > > > > It evaluates to -1, so is a finite string of digits. Google Euler's > > Identity. > > > > /Flibble > > > Nice to know, thanks. Thus your rebuttal seems complete it is not an > infinite anything. Imagining the square root of a negative number or > that parallel lines meet seems a little nuts to me. > > We might as well imagine that a cat is an office building and the ask: > What should we feed this imaginary cat. > Zero doesn't have a physical representation. So Roman numbers didn't have the concept. Negative numbers don't have a physical representation. Whilst children generally accept that two negatives make a positive, justiifying this is quite hard. Imaginary numbers are called "imaginary" because, again, they don't have an obvious physical representation (it's now thought that maybe some subatomic particles have imaginary mass). All these concepts have historically caused great difficulty. Which is why it is almost impossible to make progress in mathematics or related disciplines without having a deep understanding of what has gone before. Otherwise you are doomed to retread old debates.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-03 16:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <t4s91h$hkb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49603 |
On 5/3/2022 3:51 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Tuesday, 3 May 2022 at 20:05:39 UTC+1, olcott wrote: >> On 5/3/2022 1:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Tue, 3 May 2022 11:57:39 -0500 >>> olcott <polc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/3/2022 11:41 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, 3 May 2022 at 15:33:45 UTC+1, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/3/2022 6:08 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, 3 May 2022 at 10:36:48 UTC+1, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2022-05-02 16:18:36 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It seems to me that all infinitely recursive definitions are >>>>>>>>> invalid and I am having an excellent dialogue with some Prolog >>>>>>>>> folks about this in comp.lang.prolog. >>>>>>>> One of the rules that define Prolog language is >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> arguments ::= argument | argument "," arguments >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> which is infinitely recursive. Is it invalid? Is Prolog invalid >>>>>>>> because of this and other infinitely recursive rules? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind of. >>>>>>> A Prolog program is a physical object, not a mathematical object, >>>>>>> so the recursion has to terminate somewhere. >>>>>>> But it might lead you into strange territory if you tried to >>>>>>> define the result of passing an ininite argument list to some >>>>>>> Prolog. >>>> >>>>>> Even infinitely recursive math expressions are semantically >>>>>> incorrect in that they can never be evaluated. >>>>>> >>>>> What's e ^ (PI * i) ? >>>>> >>>>> e is Euler's number. >>>>> PI is the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference >>>>> i is the square root of -1. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't buy into the whole imaginary numbers game. >>>> We could imagine that 2 + 3 = 17 and call that an imaginary sum. >>>> >>>> That is not an infinitely recursive math expression. >>>> It is a math expression that can be evaluated on the basis of the >>>> numerical constants specified by e, PI and i. That it cannot be >>>> resolved to a finite string of digits does not make it invalid. >>> >>> It evaluates to -1, so is a finite string of digits. Google Euler's >>> Identity. >>> >>> /Flibble >>> >> Nice to know, thanks. Thus your rebuttal seems complete it is not an >> infinite anything. Imagining the square root of a negative number or >> that parallel lines meet seems a little nuts to me. >> >> We might as well imagine that a cat is an office building and the ask: >> What should we feed this imaginary cat. >> > Zero doesn't have a physical representation. So Roman numbers didn't have > the concept. Negative numbers don't have a physical representation. Whilst > children generally accept that two negatives make a positive, justiifying this > is quite hard. Imaginary numbers are called "imaginary" because, again, they > don't have an obvious physical representation (it's now thought that maybe > some subatomic particles have imaginary mass). > > All these concepts have historically caused great difficulty. Which is why it > is almost impossible to make progress in mathematics or related disciplines > without having a deep understanding of what has gone before. Otherwise you > are doomed to retread old debates. May I try another by analogy: PO doesn't have a brain so he/it doesn't exist. Thus, he is just a disembodied typist. Would this possibly explain all the misquotes and misunderstandings that emanate from the ghost terminal? I've been comparing him to a parrot but I now see that is an insult to parrots with brains intact. But I still have an urge to ask "Polly want a cracker?" -- Jeff Barnett
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-03 17:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t4s9i6$js5$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49605 |
On 5/3/2022 5:06 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote: > On 5/3/2022 3:51 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On Tuesday, 3 May 2022 at 20:05:39 UTC+1, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/3/2022 1:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>> On Tue, 3 May 2022 11:57:39 -0500 >>>> olcott <polc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 5/3/2022 11:41 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>>> On Tuesday, 3 May 2022 at 15:33:45 UTC+1, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/3/2022 6:08 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 3 May 2022 at 10:36:48 UTC+1, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-02 16:18:36 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that all infinitely recursive definitions are >>>>>>>>>> invalid and I am having an excellent dialogue with some Prolog >>>>>>>>>> folks about this in comp.lang.prolog. >>>>>>>>> One of the rules that define Prolog language is >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> arguments ::= argument | argument "," arguments >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> which is infinitely recursive. Is it invalid? Is Prolog invalid >>>>>>>>> because of this and other infinitely recursive rules? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kind of. >>>>>>>> A Prolog program is a physical object, not a mathematical object, >>>>>>>> so the recursion has to terminate somewhere. >>>>>>>> But it might lead you into strange territory if you tried to >>>>>>>> define the result of passing an ininite argument list to some >>>>>>>> Prolog. >>>>> >>>>>>> Even infinitely recursive math expressions are semantically >>>>>>> incorrect in that they can never be evaluated. >>>>>>> >>>>>> What's e ^ (PI * i) ? >>>>>> >>>>>> e is Euler's number. >>>>>> PI is the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference >>>>>> i is the square root of -1. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't buy into the whole imaginary numbers game. >>>>> We could imagine that 2 + 3 = 17 and call that an imaginary sum. >>>>> >>>>> That is not an infinitely recursive math expression. >>>>> It is a math expression that can be evaluated on the basis of the >>>>> numerical constants specified by e, PI and i. That it cannot be >>>>> resolved to a finite string of digits does not make it invalid. >>>> >>>> It evaluates to -1, so is a finite string of digits. Google Euler's >>>> Identity. >>>> >>>> /Flibble >>>> >>> Nice to know, thanks. Thus your rebuttal seems complete it is not an >>> infinite anything. Imagining the square root of a negative number or >>> that parallel lines meet seems a little nuts to me. >>> >>> We might as well imagine that a cat is an office building and the ask: >>> What should we feed this imaginary cat. >>> >> Zero doesn't have a physical representation. So Roman numbers didn't have >> the concept. Negative numbers don't have a physical representation. >> Whilst >> children generally accept that two negatives make a positive, >> justiifying this >> is quite hard. Imaginary numbers are called "imaginary" because, >> again, they >> don't have an obvious physical representation (it's now thought that >> maybe >> some subatomic particles have imaginary mass). >> >> All these concepts have historically caused great difficulty. Which is >> why it >> is almost impossible to make progress in mathematics or related >> disciplines >> without having a deep understanding of what has gone before. Otherwise >> you >> are doomed to retread old debates. > > May I try another by analogy: PO doesn't have a brain so he/it doesn't > exist. Thus, he is just a disembodied typist. Would this possibly > explain all the misquotes and misunderstandings that emanate from the > ghost terminal? I've been comparing him to a parrot but I now see that > is an insult to parrots with brains intact. But I still have an urge to > ask "Polly want a cracker?" Ad Hominem attacks are the first resort of clueless wonders. You have proven that you are not totally clueless about all of these things, there are some of these things that you do correctly understand. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-03 17:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t4s9b5$js5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49603 |
On 5/3/2022 4:51 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Tuesday, 3 May 2022 at 20:05:39 UTC+1, olcott wrote: >> On 5/3/2022 1:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Tue, 3 May 2022 11:57:39 -0500 >>> olcott <polc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/3/2022 11:41 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, 3 May 2022 at 15:33:45 UTC+1, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/3/2022 6:08 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, 3 May 2022 at 10:36:48 UTC+1, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2022-05-02 16:18:36 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It seems to me that all infinitely recursive definitions are >>>>>>>>> invalid and I am having an excellent dialogue with some Prolog >>>>>>>>> folks about this in comp.lang.prolog. >>>>>>>> One of the rules that define Prolog language is >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> arguments ::= argument | argument "," arguments >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> which is infinitely recursive. Is it invalid? Is Prolog invalid >>>>>>>> because of this and other infinitely recursive rules? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind of. >>>>>>> A Prolog program is a physical object, not a mathematical object, >>>>>>> so the recursion has to terminate somewhere. >>>>>>> But it might lead you into strange territory if you tried to >>>>>>> define the result of passing an ininite argument list to some >>>>>>> Prolog. >>>> >>>>>> Even infinitely recursive math expressions are semantically >>>>>> incorrect in that they can never be evaluated. >>>>>> >>>>> What's e ^ (PI * i) ? >>>>> >>>>> e is Euler's number. >>>>> PI is the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference >>>>> i is the square root of -1. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't buy into the whole imaginary numbers game. >>>> We could imagine that 2 + 3 = 17 and call that an imaginary sum. >>>> >>>> That is not an infinitely recursive math expression. >>>> It is a math expression that can be evaluated on the basis of the >>>> numerical constants specified by e, PI and i. That it cannot be >>>> resolved to a finite string of digits does not make it invalid. >>> >>> It evaluates to -1, so is a finite string of digits. Google Euler's >>> Identity. >>> >>> /Flibble >>> >> Nice to know, thanks. Thus your rebuttal seems complete it is not an >> infinite anything. Imagining the square root of a negative number or >> that parallel lines meet seems a little nuts to me. >> >> We might as well imagine that a cat is an office building and the ask: >> What should we feed this imaginary cat. >> > Zero doesn't have a physical representation. So Roman numbers didn't have > the concept. Negative numbers don't have a physical representation. Whilst > children generally accept that two negatives make a positive, justiifying this > is quite hard. Imaginary numbers are called "imaginary" because, again, they > don't have an obvious physical representation (it's now thought that maybe > some subatomic particles have imaginary mass). > It is not at all about physical representations it is about ideas that directly contradict the verified facts, the square root of a negative number and parallel lines that meet are both known to be non-existent on the basis of definitions. > All these concepts have historically caused great difficulty. Which is why it > is almost impossible to make progress in mathematics or related disciplines > without having a deep understanding of what has gone before. Otherwise you > are doomed to retread old debates. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-04 12:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87sfppr22u.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #49603 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > Zero doesn't have a physical representation. So Roman numbers didn't have > the concept. I think this is a common myth. The concept of zero is quite different from the numeral. The Romans used abacuses for calculations so there was a very natural physical representation both for zero (an empty counting board) and for zero counters in one or other column. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-04 14:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t4ttkq$bhu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #49642 |
On 04/05/2022 12:04, Ben wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>> Zero doesn't have a physical representation. So Roman numbers didn't have
>> the concept.
> I think this is a common myth. The concept of zero is quite different
> from the numeral. The Romans used abacuses for calculations so there
> was a very natural physical representation both for zero (an empty
> counting board) and for zero counters in one or other column.
Partly agreed. But there are other myths and confusions which are
quite near the surface in the above. Zero as a placeholder in a column of
an abacus is quite different from zero as a number. If you ask a farmer
how many sheep he has, he might say "four" or "216"; he is unlikely to
say "zero" [rather, "I don't have any sheep"], and [FWIW] very unlikely to
say "minus three". Even if 0 and -3 exist for some purposes, they were not
thought to be /numbers/ until relatively recently, whereas the answer to
"How many ...?" is expected to be a number. So 0 and -3 were as "nutty"
to most people, however useful in mathematics, as "i" is to PO and others
today. Luckily, I doubt whether PO has yet discovered "j" and "k" as
further square roots of -1, or his "nuttiness" would know no bounds; yet
quaternions are a natural route into [very practical!] relativity.
One of the problems with 0 as a number is that inventories and
other lists become ill-specified. It's one thing to say that this farm
has 216 sheep, 42 cows and three horses, but once you start adding in
that there are zero pigs, zero giraffes, zero unicorns, ..., where do
you stop?
Separately, there is a persistent myth that Roman numerals are
unsuitable for use in arithmetic. Not so. As long as your numbers don't
exceed a few thousand, they are as easy to use as Arabic numerals; and
for large/tiny numbers, you can do what everyone did until recently and
invent new units [such as acres rather than square yards].
--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Mozart,L
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-04 14:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87bkwdquhg.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #49646 |
Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> writes: > On 04/05/2022 12:04, Ben wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >>> Zero doesn't have a physical representation. So Roman numbers didn't have >>> the concept. >> I think this is a common myth. The concept of zero is quite different >> from the numeral. The Romans used abacuses for calculations so there >> was a very natural physical representation both for zero (an empty >> counting board) and for zero counters in one or other column. > > Partly agreed. But there are other myths and confusions which are > quite near the surface in the above. Zero as a placeholder in a column of > an abacus is quite different from zero as a number. I hope you don't think I implied they were the same. My point was that the concept of zero things is very natural, even if it expressed without that word. > If you ask a farmer > how many sheep he has, he might say "four" or "216"; he is unlikely to > say "zero" [rather, "I don't have any sheep"], and [FWIW] very unlikely to > say "minus three". Even if 0 and -3 exist for some purposes, they were not > thought to be /numbers/ until relatively recently, whereas the answer to > "How many ...?" is expected to be a number. I think that some quite old Chinese, Indian and Mayan text would suggest otherwise. Of course it's hard to cross the cultural chasm and work out who had the concept of zero "as a number", but even if you don't rate my interpretation of the textual evidence, every culture will have had an answer to "how many sheep do you have now that they've all starved?". Is that "none as a number"? I don't think that's an easy question to answer. > So 0 and -3 were as "nutty" > to most people, however useful in mathematics, as "i" is to PO and others > today. Luckily, I doubt whether PO has yet discovered "j" and "k" as > further square roots of -1, or his "nuttiness" would know no bounds; yet > quaternions are a natural route into [very practical!] relativity. > > One of the problems with 0 as a number is that inventories and > other lists become ill-specified. It's one thing to say that this farm > has 216 sheep, 42 cows and three horses, but once you start adding in > that there are zero pigs, zero giraffes, zero unicorns, ..., where do > you stop? > > Separately, there is a persistent myth that Roman numerals are > unsuitable for use in arithmetic. Not so. As long as your numbers don't > exceed a few thousand, they are as easy to use as Arabic numerals; and > for large/tiny numbers, you can do what everyone did until recently and > invent new units [such as acres rather than square yards]. Yes, and the calculations where often done with a place-holder abacus. The subtractive notation for numbers like IX and IV was a relatively late contraction and, I believe, not universally used even when it became common for ceremonial use (for dates and names and the like). -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-04 00:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <t4s9t8$t8k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #49589 |
Peter Olcott wrote: > On 5/3/2022 1:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On Tue, 3 May 2022 11:57:39 -0500 >> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: ... >>> I don't buy into the whole imaginary numbers game. >>> We could imagine that 2 + 3 = 17 and call that an imaginary sum. ... > > Nice to know, thanks. Thus your rebuttal seems complete it is not an > infinite anything. Imagining the square root of a negative number or > that parallel lines meet seems a little nuts to me. Before jumping to such outrageously uninformed conclusions you may want to learn how complex numbers are actually defined nowadays. It is true that, at first, it was used without any proper definition better than "let's assume we can deal with sqrt(-1) as usual". The surprising point at that time is it works pretty well. *Then*, in the XIXth Century, Gallois showed how to define complex numbers rigorously. You've never heard of that, Peter, really? [for the record: C is the set of equivalence classes of polynomials on R by the relation p ~ q iff p - q = 0 [mod x^2+1], compatibility of + and * on R and C can be proven easily, R is naturally injected into C as a set of constant polynomials, i is the equivalence class of the polynomial x]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-03 17:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t4sb1r$uln$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49611 |
On 5/3/2022 5:21 PM, Python wrote: > Peter Olcott wrote: >> On 5/3/2022 1:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Tue, 3 May 2022 11:57:39 -0500 >>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > ... >>>> I don't buy into the whole imaginary numbers game. >>>> We could imagine that 2 + 3 = 17 and call that an imaginary sum. > ... >> >> Nice to know, thanks. Thus your rebuttal seems complete it is not an >> infinite anything. Imagining the square root of a negative number or >> that parallel lines meet seems a little nuts to me. > > Before jumping to such outrageously uninformed conclusions you may want > to learn how complex numbers are actually defined nowadays. > They are defined to directly contradict the verified facts. I really hate anything that directly contradicts the verified facts because this can result in: (a) Climate change making humans extinct quite soon, (b) Nazi "big lie" propaganda about election fraud is making very significant inroads to transforming Democracy ion the USA to Fascism. (c) It directly resulted in many covid-19 deaths > It is true that, at first, it was used without any proper definition > better than "let's assume we can deal with sqrt(-1) as usual". The > surprising point at that time is it works pretty well. > We can see what happens when we hypothesize (against the facts) that square roots of negative numbers and parallel lines that meet exist simply to see where this leads. I am sure that this is the intent. > *Then*, in the XIXth Century, Gallois showed how to define complex > numbers rigorously. > > You've never heard of that, Peter, really? > > [for the record: C is the set of equivalence classes of polynomials > on R by the relation p ~ q iff p - q = 0 [mod x^2+1], compatibility > of + and * on R and C can be proven easily, R is naturally injected > into C as a set of constant polynomials, i is the equivalence class of > the polynomial x] > > -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-04 00:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <t4sbba$1d73$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #49617 |
Peter Olcott wrote: > On 5/3/2022 5:21 PM, Python wrote: >> Peter Olcott wrote: >>> On 5/3/2022 1:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>> On Tue, 3 May 2022 11:57:39 -0500 >>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: >> ... >>>>> I don't buy into the whole imaginary numbers game. >>>>> We could imagine that 2 + 3 = 17 and call that an imaginary sum. >> ... >>> >>> Nice to know, thanks. Thus your rebuttal seems complete it is not an >>> infinite anything. Imagining the square root of a negative number or >>> that parallel lines meet seems a little nuts to me. >> >> Before jumping to such outrageously uninformed conclusions you may want >> to learn how complex numbers are actually defined nowadays. >> > > They are defined to directly contradict the verified facts. > I really hate anything that directly contradicts the verified facts > because this can result in: > (a) Climate change making humans extinct quite soon, > > (b) Nazi "big lie" propaganda about election fraud is making very > significant inroads to transforming Democracy ion the USA to Fascism. > > (c) It directly resulted in many covid-19 deaths You should definitely call a doctor and ask for help, your mental state is utterly ill. What the f* are complex numbers related to your rants on politics? >> It is true that, at first, it was used without any proper definition >> better than "let's assume we can deal with sqrt(-1) as usual". The >> surprising point at that time is it works pretty well. >> > > We can see what happens when we hypothesize (against the facts) that > square roots of negative numbers and parallel lines that meet exist > simply to see where this leads. I am sure that this is the intent. Not quite you're wrong. The intent was to find *real* roots of degree 3 polynomials even if square root of negative quantities appears at intermediary steps. You know *nothing* about history of Science, Peter. Guessing is quite absurd when it comes to History. >> *Then*, in the XIXth Century, Gallois showed how to define complex >> numbers rigorously. >> >> You've never heard of that, Peter, really? >> >> [for the record: C is the set of equivalence classes of polynomials >> on R by the relation p ~ q iff p - q = 0 [mod x^2+1], compatibility >> of + and * on R and C can be proven easily, R is naturally injected >> into C as a set of constant polynomials, i is the equivalence class of >> the polynomial x] No reaction? Well... Not a big surprise, your eyes cancel out any sensible arguments proving you wrong, as usual. Die in Hell, idiotic annoying crank. You deserve it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-03 17:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t4sbi4$1hg$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49618 |
On 5/3/2022 5:46 PM, Python wrote: > Peter Olcott wrote: >> On 5/3/2022 5:21 PM, Python wrote: >>> Peter Olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/3/2022 1:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 3 May 2022 11:57:39 -0500 >>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: >>> ... >>>>>> I don't buy into the whole imaginary numbers game. >>>>>> We could imagine that 2 + 3 = 17 and call that an imaginary sum. >>> ... >>>> >>>> Nice to know, thanks. Thus your rebuttal seems complete it is not an >>>> infinite anything. Imagining the square root of a negative number or >>>> that parallel lines meet seems a little nuts to me. >>> >>> Before jumping to such outrageously uninformed conclusions you may want >>> to learn how complex numbers are actually defined nowadays. >>> >> >> They are defined to directly contradict the verified facts. >> I really hate anything that directly contradicts the verified facts >> because this can result in: >> (a) Climate change making humans extinct quite soon, >> >> (b) Nazi "big lie" propaganda about election fraud is making very >> significant inroads to transforming Democracy ion the USA to Fascism. >> >> (c) It directly resulted in many covid-19 deaths > > You should definitely call a doctor and ask for help, your mental > state is utterly ill. What the f* are complex numbers related to > your rants on politics? > >>> It is true that, at first, it was used without any proper definition >>> better than "let's assume we can deal with sqrt(-1) as usual". The >>> surprising point at that time is it works pretty well. >>> >> >> We can see what happens when we hypothesize (against the facts) that >> square roots of negative numbers and parallel lines that meet exist >> simply to see where this leads. I am sure that this is the intent. > > > Not quite you're wrong. The intent was to find *real* roots of degree 3 > polynomials even if square root of negative quantities appears at > intermediary steps. > None-the-less as I just said this whole think relies on accepting a known false premise. > You know *nothing* about history of Science, Peter. Guessing is quite > absurd when it comes to History. > >>> *Then*, in the XIXth Century, Gallois showed how to define complex >>> numbers rigorously. >>> >>> You've never heard of that, Peter, really? >>> >>> [for the record: C is the set of equivalence classes of polynomials >>> on R by the relation p ~ q iff p - q = 0 [mod x^2+1], compatibility >>> of + and * on R and C can be proven easily, R is naturally injected >>> into C as a set of constant polynomials, i is the equivalence class of >>> the polynomial x] > > No reaction? Well... Not a big surprise, your eyes cancel out any > sensible arguments proving you wrong, as usual. > > Die in Hell, idiotic annoying crank. You deserve it. > > > > -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-04 01:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <t4scfh$1mjs$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #49620 |
Peter Olcott wrote: > On 5/3/2022 5:46 PM, Python wrote: >> Peter Olcott wrote: >>> On 5/3/2022 5:21 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Peter Olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/3/2022 1:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 3 May 2022 11:57:39 -0500 >>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> ... >>>>>>> I don't buy into the whole imaginary numbers game. >>>>>>> We could imagine that 2 + 3 = 17 and call that an imaginary sum. >>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> Nice to know, thanks. Thus your rebuttal seems complete it is not >>>>> an infinite anything. Imagining the square root of a negative >>>>> number or that parallel lines meet seems a little nuts to me. >>>> >>>> Before jumping to such outrageously uninformed conclusions you may want >>>> to learn how complex numbers are actually defined nowadays. >>>> >>> >>> They are defined to directly contradict the verified facts. >>> I really hate anything that directly contradicts the verified facts >>> because this can result in: >>> (a) Climate change making humans extinct quite soon, >>> >>> (b) Nazi "big lie" propaganda about election fraud is making very >>> significant inroads to transforming Democracy ion the USA to Fascism. >>> >>> (c) It directly resulted in many covid-19 deaths >> >> You should definitely call a doctor and ask for help, your mental >> state is utterly ill. What the f* are complex numbers related to >> your rants on politics? >> >>>> It is true that, at first, it was used without any proper definition >>>> better than "let's assume we can deal with sqrt(-1) as usual". The >>>> surprising point at that time is it works pretty well. >>>> >>> >>> We can see what happens when we hypothesize (against the facts) that >>> square roots of negative numbers and parallel lines that meet exist >>> simply to see where this leads. I am sure that this is the intent. >> >> >> Not quite you're wrong. The intent was to find *real* roots of degree 3 >> polynomials even if square root of negative quantities appears at >> intermediary steps. >> > > None-the-less as I just said this whole think relies on accepting a > known false premise. Let me guess, you are some kind of "information engineer" and consider yourself also as "one of the greatest logicians Humanity ever had", right? There is a demented guy of this kind on sci.physics.relativity, his name is Maciej Wozniak. You guys should definitely mate (NOT). >> You know *nothing* about history of Science, Peter. Guessing is quite >> absurd when it comes to History. >> >>>> *Then*, in the XIXth Century, Gallois showed how to define complex >>>> numbers rigorously. >>>> >>>> You've never heard of that, Peter, really? >>>> >>>> [for the record: C is the set of equivalence classes of polynomials >>>> on R by the relation p ~ q iff p - q = 0 [mod x^2+1], compatibility >>>> of + and * on R and C can be proven easily, R is naturally injected >>>> into C as a set of constant polynomials, i is the equivalence class of >>>> the polynomial x] >> >> No reaction? Well... Not a big surprise, your eyes cancel out any >> sensible arguments proving you wrong, as usual. >> >> Die in Hell, idiotic annoying crank. You deserve it. (bis)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-03 18:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t4sevk$n1l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49621 |
On 5/3/2022 6:05 PM, Python wrote: > Peter Olcott wrote: >> On 5/3/2022 5:46 PM, Python wrote: >>> Peter Olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/3/2022 5:21 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Peter Olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/3/2022 1:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 3 May 2022 11:57:39 -0500 >>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>>>>> I don't buy into the whole imaginary numbers game. >>>>>>>> We could imagine that 2 + 3 = 17 and call that an imaginary sum. >>>>> ... >>>>>> >>>>>> Nice to know, thanks. Thus your rebuttal seems complete it is not >>>>>> an infinite anything. Imagining the square root of a negative >>>>>> number or that parallel lines meet seems a little nuts to me. >>>>> >>>>> Before jumping to such outrageously uninformed conclusions you may >>>>> want >>>>> to learn how complex numbers are actually defined nowadays. >>>>> >>>> >>>> They are defined to directly contradict the verified facts. >>>> I really hate anything that directly contradicts the verified facts >>>> because this can result in: >>>> (a) Climate change making humans extinct quite soon, >>>> >>>> (b) Nazi "big lie" propaganda about election fraud is making very >>>> significant inroads to transforming Democracy ion the USA to Fascism. >>>> >>>> (c) It directly resulted in many covid-19 deaths >>> >>> You should definitely call a doctor and ask for help, your mental >>> state is utterly ill. What the f* are complex numbers related to >>> your rants on politics? >>> >>>>> It is true that, at first, it was used without any proper definition >>>>> better than "let's assume we can deal with sqrt(-1) as usual". The >>>>> surprising point at that time is it works pretty well. >>>>> >>>> >>>> We can see what happens when we hypothesize (against the facts) that >>>> square roots of negative numbers and parallel lines that meet exist >>>> simply to see where this leads. I am sure that this is the intent. >>> >>> >>> Not quite you're wrong. The intent was to find *real* roots of degree 3 >>> polynomials even if square root of negative quantities appears at >>> intermediary steps. >>> >> >> None-the-less as I just said this whole think relies on accepting a >> known false premise. > > Let me guess, you are some kind of "information engineer" and consider > yourself also as "one of the greatest logicians Humanity ever had", > right? There is a demented guy of this kind on sci.physics.relativity, > his name is Maciej Wozniak. You guys should definitely mate (NOT). > I consider myself to have made significant unique advancements on the single subject on the philosophical foundation of the notion of logical truth. One of my key breakthroughs is redefining the analytic / synthetic distinction such that analytic means (the same as it did) any expression of formal or natural language that can be verified as true entirely on the basis of its meaning. "Dogs are animals" The somewhat vaguely defined synthetic is renamed as empirical and it is the same sort of thing as analytic that additionally requires sense data from the sense organs as an aspect of the truth verification process. "There is a dog in my living room right now." This is the most important paper on the subject Two Dogmas of Empiricism by Willard Van Orman Quine (Harvard University Press, 1953; second, revised, edition 1961) https://www.theologie.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:ffffffff-fbd6-1538-0000-000070cf64bc/Quine51.pdf Quine didn't seem to understand that bachelors are necessarily unmarried. Meaning Postulates by RUDOLF CARNAP https://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulates_Rudolf_Carnap_1952.pdf conclusively proved the complete basis of how we know that bachelors are necessarily unmarried. Quine didn't want to hear this because it contradicted his paper. >>> You know *nothing* about history of Science, Peter. Guessing is quite >>> absurd when it comes to History. >>> >>>>> *Then*, in the XIXth Century, Gallois showed how to define complex >>>>> numbers rigorously. >>>>> >>>>> You've never heard of that, Peter, really? >>>>> >>>>> [for the record: C is the set of equivalence classes of polynomials >>>>> on R by the relation p ~ q iff p - q = 0 [mod x^2+1], compatibility >>>>> of + and * on R and C can be proven easily, R is naturally injected >>>>> into C as a set of constant polynomials, i is the equivalence class of >>>>> the polynomial x] >>> >>> No reaction? Well... Not a big surprise, your eyes cancel out any >>> sensible arguments proving you wrong, as usual. >>> >>> Die in Hell, idiotic annoying crank. You deserve it. > > (bis) > > -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-04 12:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87mtfxr1kp.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #49553 |
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > Even infinitely recursive math expressions are semantically incorrect > in that they can never be evaluated. Someone with no education in mathematics makes a bold claim about mathematical concepts without defining any of then, and for some reason a discussion ensues on Usenet. Let me get snacks... -- Ben. "le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas" Alexandre Dumas (fils)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-04 11:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t4u9cf$gp0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49643 |
On 5/4/2022 6:15 AM, Ben wrote: > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > >> Even infinitely recursive math expressions are semantically incorrect >> in that they can never be evaluated. > > Someone with no education in mathematics makes a bold claim about > mathematical concepts without defining any of then, and for some reason > a discussion ensues on Usenet. Let me get snacks... > I have spent thousands of hours on this point. When the evaluation directed graph of an expression has an infinite cycle. See page 4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350789898_Prolog_detects_and_rejects_pathological_self_reference_in_the_Godel_sentence -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-04 18:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <2sDcK.5442$r5xa.3919@fx37.iad> |
| In reply to | #49653 |
On 5/4/22 12:24 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/4/2022 6:15 AM, Ben wrote: >> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Even infinitely recursive math expressions are semantically incorrect >>> in that they can never be evaluated. >> >> Someone with no education in mathematics makes a bold claim about >> mathematical concepts without defining any of then, and for some reason >> a discussion ensues on Usenet. Let me get snacks... >> > > I have spent thousands of hours on this point. > When the evaluation directed graph of an expression has an infinite > cycle. See page 4. > > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350789898_Prolog_detects_and_rejects_pathological_self_reference_in_the_Godel_sentence > > Which shows that Prolog's limited logic capability can't handle (with that method) this form of logic. I don't think Prolog can handle the properties of mathematics, so I suspect that you are just showing that you logic syste is to primative to handle the complexity needed to handle the incompleteness proof (which states the minimum capability of the logic system to apply) or Computation theory. So, baseing your rejection on the limitations of Prolog just show your lack of understand of what you are claiming.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-03 09:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t4req3$qee$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49548 |
On 5/3/2022 4:36 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2022-05-02 16:18:36 +0000, olcott said: > >> It seems to me that all infinitely recursive definitions are invalid >> and I am having an excellent dialogue with some Prolog folks about >> this in comp.lang.prolog. > > One of the rules that define Prolog language is > > arguments ::= argument | argument "," arguments > > which is infinitely recursive. Is it invalid? Is Prolog invalid because > of this and other infinitely recursive rules? > > Mikko > If would have to be invalid because it can never be resolved. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-03 20:17 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t4ro44$1rh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49554 |
On 2022-05-03 14:38:57 +0000, olcott said: > On 5/3/2022 4:36 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2022-05-02 16:18:36 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> It seems to me that all infinitely recursive definitions are invalid >>> and I am having an excellent dialogue with some Prolog folks about this >>> in comp.lang.prolog. >> >> One of the rules that define Prolog language is >> >> arguments ::= argument | argument "," arguments >> >> which is infinitely recursive. Is it invalid? Is Prolog invalid because >> of this and other infinitely recursive rules? >> >> Mikko >> > > If would have to be invalid because it can never be resolved. What would be invalid? Prolog? Definition of Prolog? Why "would be" and not "is"? Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web