Prev: Why G. Chaitin mesure of complexity is wrong.
Next: ISO old-fashioned math exercises for kids
From: Charlie-Boo on 20 Jan 2010 19:55
On Dec 22 2009, 3:41 pm, Jan Burse <janbu...(a)fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 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.

Function, Mr. Ackerman (with proof even better.)

C-B
From: James Burns on 20 Jan 2010 20:40
Charlie-Boo wrote:
> On Dec 22 2009, 11:11 am, "Jesse F. Hughes"
> <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote:
>>Charlie-Boo <shymath...(a)gmail.com> writes:
>>>On Dec 22, 7:52 am, "Jesse F. Hughes"
>>><je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote:

>>>>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.
>
> How's that? (You've never been right.)

Well, I doubt it will matter to anyone but you,
if you decide to ignore Jesse's advice (and mine).

Your use of "i.e." above is not normal. It may be
that you will spark a change in what is considered
normal use, but maybe not.

In my experience, "i.e." is used to introduce what
is purportedly a restatement of the preceding phrase.
I do not remember ever seeing it used terminally
as you have here.

A sentence I would be comfortable with, so far as
i.e.-usage is concerned would be: "As are you when
you're talking about Mathematics, i.e., when you
are not talking nonsense."

It is true that ending your sentence with "that is"
would be a thing that is done, and the literal tranlation
of "i.e." is "that is", but idioms do not have to be
logical. They follow a higher standard, presumably.

My bit of research gives me
(adv) i.e., ie, id est (that is to say; in other words)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=i.e.
This makes a better match for the uses I have have seen,
but even those are most likely less than identical.

Jim Burns

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Why G. Chaitin mesure of complexity is wrong.
Next: ISO old-fashioned math exercises for kids