LudovicoVan
Posts:
2,971
From:
London
Registered:
2/8/08
|
|
Re: On the diagonal argument (3)
Posted:
May 20, 2012 11:34 PM
|
|
"LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> wrote in message
news:jpccur$8ns$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> "Graham Cooper" <grahamcooper7@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:882d0a23-79e9-49b1-9ad8-36c6cfbff6be@f9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 21, 12:58 pm, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>> In a word, there are more strings than numbers (any numbers).
>>
>> then you have computable-strings and uncomputable-definition-only-
>> strings
>>
>> and you have still have a >|N| set of strings.
>
> There would be no *set* of strings, unless in some meta-theoretical sense.
> The idea is that some strings (an infinity of them) will always be
> *meaningless*, i.e. not encode any number.
But encode, possibly, a meta-number. Goedel's sentence is the encoding of a
meta-sentence. Turing's argument relies on the encoding of a meta-machine.
Etc. etc., or so I am thinking...
-LV
|
|
