New Primitive Programming Language - Is it Turing Complete?
in [Math]
|
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 22 Dec 2009 07:52 Charlie-Boo <shymathguy(a)gmail.com> writes: > On Dec 20, 11:45 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: >> Charlie-Boo <shymath...(a)gmail.com> writes: >> > That means that the universal set is representable. There is a wff >> > w1(x) that is provable for all values x being substituted for the x. >> >> Right. Like, say, w1(x) could be x = x. >> >> How is this fascinating? > > Yes, that's right. (I was wondering if anyone would notice.) Sure, it was a test. It looked like a stupid blunder, but it was a test. You're a clever one, you are. -- Jesse F. Hughes "You do know that after the get done with [outlawing] cigarettes, they're gonna come after guns, right?" -- AM talk radio host Mike Gallagher
From: Charlie-Boo on 22 Dec 2009 08:42 On Dec 22, 7:52 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > Charlie-Boo <shymath...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > On Dec 20, 11:45 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > >> Charlie-Boo <shymath...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> > That means that the universal set is representable. There is a wff > >> > w1(x) that is provable for all values x being substituted for the x. > > >> Right. Like, say, w1(x) could be x = x. > > >> How is this fascinating? > > > Yes, that's right. (I was wondering if anyone would notice.) > > Sure, it was a test. > > It looked like a stupid blunder, but it was a test. Actually, I realized it after I read it one more time after posting it. (This happens from time to time. No need to rationalize.) I guess you can say it was a blunder that turned into an unintentional test - I did in fact wonder who would notice, of course, as would anyone - mayhaps even yourself? Anywho, as far as my questions about addition and multiplication, and the original (broader) question about characterizing what Peano's Axioms really say about a system that contains them go, . . . ? > You're a clever one, you are. As are you - when you're talking about Mathematics, i.e. C-B > -- > Jesse F. Hughes > "You do know that after the get done with [outlawing] cigarettes, > they're gonna come after guns, right?" > -- AM talk radio host Mike Gallagher
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 22 Dec 2009 11:11 Charlie-Boo <shymathguy(a)gmail.com> writes: > On Dec 22, 7:52 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: >> Charlie-Boo <shymath...(a)gmail.com> writes: >> > On Dec 20, 11:45 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: >> >> Charlie-Boo <shymath...(a)gmail.com> writes: >> >> > That means that the universal set is representable. There is a wff >> >> > w1(x) that is provable for all values x being substituted for the x. >> >> >> Right. Like, say, w1(x) could be x = x. >> >> >> How is this fascinating? >> >> > Yes, that's right. (I was wondering if anyone would notice.) >> >> Sure, it was a test. >> >> It looked like a stupid blunder, but it was a test. > > Actually, I realized it after I read it one more time after posting > it. (This happens from time to time. No need to rationalize.) I > guess you can say it was a blunder that turned into an unintentional > test - I did in fact wonder who would notice, of course, as would > anyone - mayhaps even yourself? Sorry for the insinuation. But, no, I didn't wonder who would notice. I don't know who reads your posts and with what attention. Personally, I skimmed it and didn't bother to respond to the post generally, pointing out this one obvious oddity and skipping over the reasonableness of Occam's razor when it comes to mathematical theories and so on. > Anywho, as far as my questions about addition and multiplication, and > the original (broader) question about characterizing what Peano's > Axioms really say about a system that contains them go, . . . ? > >> You're a clever one, you are. > > As are you - when you're talking about Mathematics, i.e. It's nice you're trying out Latin abbreviations, but I'm not sure you've quite got them down. -- Jesse F. Hughes "You may not realize it but THOUSANDS of people read my posts. You are putting your stupidity on wide display." -- James S. Harris knows about wide displays of stupidity.
From: spudnik on 22 Dec 2009 13:17 I have never learned what i.e. & e.g. abbreviate, but if they mean "that is" and "for example," then the usual usages seem somewhat contrary to normal English grammar, unless one uses a comma e.g.. --l'Oeuvre! www.wlym.com
From: Jan Burse on 22 Dec 2009 15:41
Charlie-Boo schrieb: > 1. Loop: FOR(X){ . . . } > 2. Assignment: A<=B > 3. Conditional: (A=B){ . . . } > 4. End loop: STOP > 5. End program: HALT A If 3. does not allow recursion, than it is not turing complete (=partial recursive). Then its only primitive recursive. |