MoeBlee wrote: >In Z set theory, we can formulate TM's and the important theorems >about TMs. We absolutely do NOT assume in set theory that a TM can >perform infinitely many operations in a single step. Indeed, our set >theoretic formulation provides that it is NOT the case that a TM can >perform infinitely many operations in a single step. I believe a lot of confusion about TMs is caused by the often repeated meme that it 'contains an infinite tape'. This is very misleading (if not outright wrong) and it suggests that the operation of a TM is *not* a stepwise process on finite pieces of tape. But it is. -- Reinier

0 |

7/22/2009 6:58:50 PM

Am Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:56:50 -0700 (PDT) schrieb MoeBlee: > On Jul 22, 12:12�pm, Kyle Easterly <keileene...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I agree most formal systems assume a TM can read any finite >> position. But, this is an assumption. And it's indeed a WRONG assumption! After all soon or later the TM will just break down (run out of lubricant, be worn-out, etc.). Moreover we all know that there's an upper bound for the length of any tape in our universe! (Note that the resources are finite in our universe!) @MoeBlee: Still fighting against mills? :-) Herb

0 |

7/22/2009 8:17:32 PM

Am Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:15:27 -0700 (PDT) schrieb RussellE: >> Do you accept mathematical induction on the natural numbers as a valid >> proof technique? >> > Not really. I think its like saying because F is true for 2,3 and 4, > F is true for 10^1000. Maybe F is true for 10^100, but you proven > this by showing F is true for 2,3 and 4. > > Russell > - 2 many 2 count Oh, you are troll! :-) Moe LOVES trolls - he just can't help. :-) Herb

0 |

7/22/2009 8:19:28 PM

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:10:28 -0700 (PDT) scribio_vide wrote: > If anyone (especially a woman) starts to sound bitchy or negative but > resigned on a math forum you can bet you are on to something good! Fuck you, asshole!

0 |

7/23/2009 1:14:42 AM

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:17:17 +0000 (UTC) Chris Menzel wrote: > The inability to distinguish (Ax)(Ey)F from (Ey)(Ax)F seems to lie at > the heart of a number of classic crank confusions. Yesterday MoeBlee wrote: "If you're not trolling me, then you really do have a severe cognitive problem." To which I replied: "I guess that's true for many mathematical cranks. (For example, WM is clearly suffering from quantifier dyslexia, besides other things.)" Same observation. :-) Herb

0 |

7/23/2009 2:58:54 PM

Am Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:47:38 -0700 (PDT) schrieb MoeBlee: > On Jul 24, 4:44�pm, Karl Malbrain <malbr...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> There's another contradiction. The natural numbers within themselves >> can produce no number for the count of natural numbers, yet they are >> the definition of what it means to count. > > Let me know when you elevate that from word game to actual > mathematical demonstration. Oh, (after reading this) this guy just went straight into my killfile. :-) Herb

0 |

7/25/2009 2:07:43 AM

Drop dead shit

Drop dead shit

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:43:08 -0700 (PDT) MoeBlee wrote: > On Jul 24, 6:21�pm, RussellE <reaste...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Just because I am a crank doesn't mean I am wrong. >> > Quite so. But you are a crank and you're wrong. A rather common coincidence. Herb

0 |

7/28/2009 12:38:17 AM