Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
Am Thu, 31 Oct 2024 07:19:18 -0500 schrieb olcott:On 10/31/2024 5:34 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2024-10-30 12:16:02 +0000, olcott said:To me they are all nonsense gibberish. How one can convert a proof aboutOn 10/30/2024 5:02 AM, Mikko wrote:Just evaluate the expressions shown in the books.On 2024-10-27 14:21:25 +0000, olcott said:Every single digit of the entire natural numbers not any symbolic nameOn 10/27/2024 3:37 AM, Mikko wrote:They can be found in any textbook of logic that discussesOn 2024-10-26 13:17:52 +0000, olcott said:OK next I want to see the actual Godel numbers and the arithmetic
>Just imagine c functions that have enough memory to compute sumsWhy just imagein? That is fairly easy to make. In some other
and products of ASCII strings of digits using the same method that
people do.
lanugages (e.g. Python, Javascript) it is alread in the library or
as a built-in feature.
steps used to derive them.
undecidability.
If you need to ask about details tell us which book you are using.
for such a number.
arithmetic into a proof about provability seems to be flatly false.
The key is selfreference. There is a number that encodes the sentenceCan you please hit return before you reply?
"the sentence with the number [the number that this sentence encodes to]
is not provable".
--Is finite.A book a trillion light years deep?It might be the case that one number fills 100 books of 1000 pagesYou fill find out when you evaluate the expressions. If you use Gödel's
each.
original numbering you will need larger numbers than strictly
necessary. If you first encode symbols with a finite set of characters
you can encode everything with finite set of characters.
Then you can encode those character strings as integers. The number of
digits can be determined from the length of the character strings.
Besides, computations are much faster than with Gödel's powers of
primes.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.