**Next message:**Anders Sandberg: "Re: UFO Raël and the definition privilege"**Previous message:**Samantha Atkins: "Re: MATH/COMP/PHIL: "Omega Man""**In reply to:**Samantha Atkins: "Re: MATH/COMP/PHIL: "Omega Man""**Next in thread:**Jim Fehlinger: "Re: MATH/COMP/PHIL: "Omega Man""**Reply:**Jim Fehlinger: "Re: MATH/COMP/PHIL: "Omega Man""**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Samantha Atkins wrote:

*>
*

*> Perhaps my mathematical education was neither abstract nor thorough
*

*> enough but this article looks to me to be making a great todo about
*

*> relatively little. In particular I find many of its stabs at the
*

*> implications to be utterly unjustified by the rest of the article'ss
*

*> contents. It looks like sensationalism and bad science reporting.
*

*>
*

*> Would someone like to take a go at a more seasoned evaluation of this
*

*> piece?
*

Hm; on due consideration, I find many of its stabs at the implications to

be utterly unjustified. It looks like sensationalism and bad science

reporting.

Except for the idea that the Goldbach Conjecture (NOT the Riemann

Hypothesis, as stated in the article) might be true but TOTALLY

unproveable (i.e., the consequence of an infinite number of independent

mathematical facts). I've heard this hypothesized before in connection

with Chaitin's work, and I find it both plausible and chilling.

Hope this helps.

-- -- -- -- --

Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/

Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence

**Next message:**Anders Sandberg: "Re: UFO Raël and the definition privilege"**Previous message:**Samantha Atkins: "Re: MATH/COMP/PHIL: "Omega Man""**In reply to:**Samantha Atkins: "Re: MATH/COMP/PHIL: "Omega Man""**Next in thread:**Jim Fehlinger: "Re: MATH/COMP/PHIL: "Omega Man""**Reply:**Jim Fehlinger: "Re: MATH/COMP/PHIL: "Omega Man""**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30
: Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:44 MDT
*