ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin) (03/08/86)
In article <1182@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU>, gds@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Greg Skinner) writes: > In article <3850042@csd2.UUCP>, sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) writes: > > Is this notion not based on Church's Thesis, which, while there is > > a great deal of evidence to support it, is not mathematically provable? > > > > Mike Sykora > > This is true, however most of the objections to Church's Thesis, > Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, etc. are that they are not yet an > accepted branch of mathematics. No, this is not true. And there are no objections I am aware of to Goedel's Theorems. There cannot be to any *theorems*. The point of Church's Thesis is that it cannot be proved, although it may be refuted. > Any future discussion on Church/Turing, uncomputability, etc., will be > done in net.math. You're optimistic. Last time it arose the net police turned out in force on net.math and net.ai. In both places the reaction was inexcusable. Peter Ladkin