From: Stuart Armstrong (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Oct 12 2009 - 10:31:43 MDT
I apologise to get back into this, and I apologise for the somewhat
snarky tone of my previous post and this one, but I can't really let
this side any longer.
> when I show that mathematicians have known for 75
> years that a fixed goal mind won't work;
This is a lie. I am a mathematician, and have run this by some of my
colleagues who work in formal logic and theoretical computer science.
You are not "repeating what mathematicians have known", you are making
a new, and extraordinary, claim.
The onus is not on us to refute it, but for you to prove it. Start
with "Assume there exists a fixed goal mind that works" and work
though a series of logical steps to "Therefore there must exist an
algorithmic procedure for deciding if an arbitrary Turing machine
stops". Make sure each step is rigorous, and that the definitions are
clear and solid. Take your time.
I deliberately chose the contrapositive version (not B implies not A,
equivalent with A implies B), because it's easier to follow in this
case, and less easy to cheat in the reasoning chain.
So, are you up to the task? Since you affirm your statement with the
force of a mathematical theorem, are you ready to write out the proof
that would actually make it into such a theorem?
As I said before, apologies for the tone, but I feel there is no other
way of getting the point across.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 23 2013 - 04:01:42 MDT