Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: You pedantic ignoramuses
Replies: 25   Last Post: Jan 16, 2005 12:01 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
|-|erc

Posts: 1,782
Registered: 1/25/05
Re: You pedantic ignoramuses
Posted: Jan 16, 2005 6:25 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

-------------------------------------s-o-s------------------------------------
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
> >> >> > lets pull a function out of the air, R(x) = Comp(random, x) + 1 mod 10
> >> >> >
> >> >> > according to you, this LIARS statement F(x) = ~F(x) is
> >> >> > a new random sequence and proves the set of all programs
> >> >> > Comp can't spit out any random string at all.
> >> >> > Herc

> >> >>
> >> >> Without knowing (or finding earlier implementations of) Comp(x,y), I
> >> >> can't process this statement. I can of course assume that
> >> >> Comp(x,y) is machine x running on input y, in which case the correct
> >> >> equality
> >> >>
> >> >> R(x) = (Comp(x,x) + 1) mod 9
> >> >>
> >> >> and that is indeed a new sequence, not in the Comp() list. Of
> >> >> course, it is not a computable sequence, though it is well-defined.

> >> >
> >> > Is R computable?

> >>
> >> If you're asking whether every r in R is computable, the
> >> answer is no. Chaitin's Constant is a nice counterexample.
> >>
> >> Besides, the set of computable reals is of measure 0,
> >> since the machines computing said reals can be mapped 1-1
> >> with the integers. Since R is obviously not measure 0,
> >> there are uncomputable reals. (Presumably, a real is
> >> computable if there exists a TM that can spit out its
> >> digits. There are admittedly a few technical issues, such
> >> as which part of the tape can be used for digit-spitting,
> >> and which for scratchwork. In a pinch, one can use two
> >> tapes; TM2 can be mapped to TM by mangling the states and
> >> changing the alphabet, so one merely simplifies the problem
> >> thereby; the number of computable reals is unchanged.)

> >
> >
> > We'll use a more global defn of computable. Computable means
> > computable in some computer system.

>
> Turing machines can compute anything a modern PC can compute.
> It just takes more cycles. :-)
>

> >
> > Say you have an OS on your computer that runs two languages L1 and L2.
> > Each language has its own UTM.
> >
> > In L1, you output a stream of computable numbers, c1, c2, c3...
> > (oo many digits isn't as big as it used to be!).

>
> Erm...yeah.
>

> >
> > The OS pipes the result to a program in L2, this program then outputs
> > R(x) = UTM-L1(x,x) + 1 mod 9.
> >
> > Same effect as munging tapes, and the diag is computable in L2.
> >
> > (note this goes against my default argument of forming diagonals
> > being an invalid op.)

>
> But forming diagonals *is* an invalid op in some contexts,
> as L2 is a finite system. In short, if UTM(x,y) computes a
> set of numbers S, then the diagonal number D is not going
> to be computable as one gets into the "infinite thread"
> problem.
>
> This is not a problem for mathematicians, though; most
> (read: all but measure 0) reals are not computable.


that's a false sense of security thinking you can define functions
that wont parse on computer, you boys like to talk big...

but in this case you are safe.

real digit
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2 / / / /
3 / / /
4 / /
5 /
6
7

L1 can send an infinite stream of reals like so.
L2 gets the reals and can COMPUTE an antidiag, on a real computer.


>
> >
> >

> >>
> >> Of course, there are also computable reals: sqrt(2),
> >> pi, and 1/3 are perfectly computable. One can also get
> >> into complexity space, asking questions such as how much
> >> time and storage might be needed to compute sqrt(2), pi,
> >> and 1/3. But this is a detail.
> >>
> >> And then there's TX_10 = {k/10^n: n >= 0, n, k in J}.
> >> This is a perfectly computable and denumerable set,
> >> consisting of all finite prefixes (base 10). It is dense,
> >> but does not cover R or Q.
> >>

> >
> > If TX_10 was personified it would be dense indeed.

>
> Does TX_10 cover R? The answer is no. If you wish
> to dispute this, show proof otherwise.



TX_10 will mark every position of the number line, drawing it black,
but I'll allow you some claim on the terminology, it doesn't cover R.

Herc






Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2013. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.