Results 1  10
of
40
Recursively Enumerable Reals and Chaitin Ω Numbers
"... A real is called recursively enumerable if it is the limit of a recursive, increasing, converging sequence of rationals. Following Solovay [23] and Chaitin [10] we say that an r.e. real dominates an r.e. real if from a good approximation of from below one can compute a good approximation of from b ..."
Abstract

Cited by 39 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A real is called recursively enumerable if it is the limit of a recursive, increasing, converging sequence of rationals. Following Solovay [23] and Chaitin [10] we say that an r.e. real dominates an r.e. real if from a good approximation of from below one can compute a good approximation of from below. We shall study this relation and characterize it in terms of relations between r.e. sets. Solovay's [23]like numbers are the maximal r.e. real numbers with respect to this order. They are random r.e. real numbers. The halting probability ofa universal selfdelimiting Turing machine (Chaitin's Ω number, [9]) is also a random r.e. real. Solovay showed that any Chaitin Ω number islike. In this paper we show that the converse implication is true as well: any Ωlike real in the unit interval is the halting probability of a universal selfdelimiting Turing machine.
Hypercomputation and the Physical ChurchTuring Thesis
, 2003
"... A version of the ChurchTuring Thesis states that every e#ectively realizable physical system can be defined by Turing Machines (`Thesis P'); in this formulation the Thesis appears an empirical, more than a logicomathematical, proposition. We review the main approaches to computation beyond Tu ..."
Abstract

Cited by 21 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A version of the ChurchTuring Thesis states that every e#ectively realizable physical system can be defined by Turing Machines (`Thesis P'); in this formulation the Thesis appears an empirical, more than a logicomathematical, proposition. We review the main approaches to computation beyond Turing definability (`hypercomputation'): supertask, nonwellfounded, analog, quantum, and retrocausal computation. These models depend on infinite computation, explicitly or implicitly, and appear physically implausible; moreover, even if infinite computation were realizable, the Halting Problem would not be a#ected. Therefore, Thesis P is not essentially di#erent from the standard ChurchTuring Thesis.
How Minds Can Be Computational Systems
 JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL AND THEORETICAL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
, 1998
"... The proper treatment of computationalism, as the thesis that cognition is computable, is presented and defended. Some arguments of James H. Fetzer against computationalism are examined and found wanting, and his positive theory of minds as semiotic systems is shown to be consistent with computatio ..."
Abstract

Cited by 16 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The proper treatment of computationalism, as the thesis that cognition is computable, is presented and defended. Some arguments of James H. Fetzer against computationalism are examined and found wanting, and his positive theory of minds as semiotic systems is shown to be consistent with computationalism. An objection is raised to an argument of Selmer Bringsjord against one strand of computationalism, namely, that TuringTestfpassing artifacts are persons, it is argued that, whether or not this objection holds, such artifacts will inevitably be persons.
Step By Recursive Step: Church's Analysis Of Effective Calculability
 BULLETIN OF SYMBOLIC LOGIC
, 1997
"... Alonzo Church's mathematical work on computability and undecidability is wellknown indeed, and we seem to have an excellent understanding of the context in which it arose. The approach Church took to the underlying conceptual issues, by contrast, is less well understood. Why, for example, wa ..."
Abstract

Cited by 14 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Alonzo Church's mathematical work on computability and undecidability is wellknown indeed, and we seem to have an excellent understanding of the context in which it arose. The approach Church took to the underlying conceptual issues, by contrast, is less well understood. Why, for example, was "Church's Thesis" put forward publicly only in April 1935, when it had been formulated already in February/March 1934? Why did Church choose to formulate it then in terms of G odel's general recursiveness, not his own #definability as he had done in 1934? A number of letters were exchanged between Church and Paul Bernays during the period from December 1934 to August 1937; they throw light on critical developments in Princeton during that period and reveal novel aspects of Church's distinctive contribution to the analysis of the informal notion of e#ective calculability. In particular, they allow me to give informed, though still tentative answers to the questions I raised; the char...
What is a Random Sequence
 The Mathematical Association of America, Monthly
, 2002
"... there laws of randomness? These old and deep philosophical questions still stir controversy today. Some scholars have suggested that our difficulty in dealing with notions of randomness could be gauged by the comparatively late development of probability theory, which had a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
there laws of randomness? These old and deep philosophical questions still stir controversy today. Some scholars have suggested that our difficulty in dealing with notions of randomness could be gauged by the comparatively late development of probability theory, which had a
Bounded Immunity and BttReductions
 MLQ Math. Log. Q
, 1999
"... We define and study a new notion called kimmunity that lies between immunity and hyperimmunity in strength. Our interest in kimmunity is justified by the result that # # does not ktt reduce to a kimmune set, which improves a previous result by Kobzev [7, 13]. We apply the result to show that ..."
Abstract

Cited by 8 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We define and study a new notion called kimmunity that lies between immunity and hyperimmunity in strength. Our interest in kimmunity is justified by the result that # # does not ktt reduce to a kimmune set, which improves a previous result by Kobzev [7, 13]. We apply the result to show that # # does not bttreduce to MIN, the set of minimal programs. Other applications include the set of Kolmogorov random strings, and retraceable and regressive sets. We also give a new characterization of e#ectively simple sets and show that simple sets are not bttcuppable. Keywords: Computability, Recursion Theory, bounded reducibilities, minimal programs, immunity, kimmune, regressive, retraceable, e#ectively simple, cuppable. 1 Introduction There seems to be a large gap between immunity and hyperimmunity (himmunity) that is waiting to be filled. What happens, one wonders if the disjoint strong arrays that try to witness that a set is not himmune are subjected to additional conditions...
Church’s Thesis and the Conceptual Analysis of Computability
 Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic
, 2007
"... ..."
Agentbased modeling: The right mathematics for the social sciences
 W., (Eds.). Elgar Recent Economic Methodology Companion, Northhampton
, 2011
"... for the social sciences? ..."
The Complexity of Finding SUBSEQ(A)
"... Higman showed that if A is any language then SUBSEQ(A) is regular. His proof wasnonconstructive. We show that the result cannot be made constructive. In particular we show that if f takes as input an index e of a total Turing Machine Me, and outputs a DFA forSUBSEQ(L(M e)), then;00 ^T f (f is \Sig ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Higman showed that if A is any language then SUBSEQ(A) is regular. His proof wasnonconstructive. We show that the result cannot be made constructive. In particular we show that if f takes as input an index e of a total Turing Machine Me, and outputs a DFA forSUBSEQ(L(M e)), then;00 ^T f (f is \Sigma 2hard). We also study the complexity of going from Ato SUBSEQ(A) for several representations of A and SUBSEQ(A).
The Evolution of ModelTheoretic Frameworks in Linguistics
"... The varieties of mathematical basis for formalizing linguistic theories are more diverse than is commonly realized. For example, the later work of Zellig Harris might well suggest a formalization in terms of CATE ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The varieties of mathematical basis for formalizing linguistic theories are more diverse than is commonly realized. For example, the later work of Zellig Harris might well suggest a formalization in terms of CATE