From: rjh@cpax.org.uk   
      
   On 10/02/2023 11:46 am, Ben Bacarisse wrote:   
   > Richard Heathfield  writes:   
   >   
   >> On 09/02/2023 2:05 pm, Ben Bacarisse wrote:   
   >>> Richard Heathfield  writes:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 09/02/2023 1:09 am, Ben Bacarisse wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>> What I don't know   
   >>>>> is in what way that C program refutes a mathematical theorem.  One makes   
   >>>>> statement about programs,   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Yes. That statement refutes the mathematical theorem by pointing out an   
   >>>> obvious fact about all programs.   
   >>> I'm now not sure if you are still joking.   
   >>   
   >> "You make too much of a trifle", as Watson said to Holmes.   
   >   
   > Might I urge you to follow the excellent device of Flora Poste and to   
   > mark with one or more asterisks those passages which you consider not to   
   > be mere trifles and about which you consider it appropriate that   
   > something might be made?   
      
   Indeed you might, but I give my readers the credit for being able   
   to tell the difference without their having to waste precious   
   computrons deciphering asterisks that are already overloaded with   
   *far too many* meanings.   
      
   Still, let me lay my somewhat arid sense of humour aside for a   
   moment and take one serious crack at explaining the rationale   
   that lies beneath my previous 'contributions' to this thread.   
      
   To argue for a mathematical model (such as a Turing machine) that   
   never halts necessarily and /obviously/ entails the claim that a   
   mathematical model can exist in perpetuity, for if the model   
   ceases to exist, so does the Turung machine. But such models   
   themselves exist only in the minds, writings and inventions of   
   mathematicians and scientists, and all the artifices and devices   
   of thinking creatures will end with the heat death of the   
   universe and the consequent inability for devices to do work.   
   Therefore, to argue that an unending program and its encompassing   
   mathematical model can exist necessarily requires one to argue,   
   in essence, for a non-corporeal and /intelligent/ life force to   
   persist after death not only of the individual but of the entire   
   universe. I don't know of many computer scientists who would be   
   prepared to argue for such persistence (because most computer   
   scientists I know are atheists). I conclude that a computer   
   scientist who argues that an unending Turing machine is possible   
   is very likely to be suffering from cognitive dissonance.   
      
   If you choose to reply, I will of course read your reply with   
   interest, but I may well not reply in turn because I intend to at   
   least attempt to refrain from contributing further to this   
   thread, as I, too, am making too much of a trifle.   
      
   --   
   Richard Heathfield   
   Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk   
   "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999   
   Sig line 4 vacant - apply within   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)