**Next message:**Mikael Johansson: "Hungarian names (was: Re: MATH/COMP/PHIL: "Omega Man")"**Previous message:**Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "HUMOR: MATH/COMP/PHIL: "Omega Man""**In reply to:**Spudboy100@aol.com: "Re: MATH/COMP/PHIL: "Omega Man""**Next in thread:**Eugene Leitl: "Re: MATH/COMP/PHIL: "Omega Man""**Reply:**Eugene Leitl: "Re: MATH/COMP/PHIL: "Omega Man""**Reply:**John Clark: "Re: MATH/COMP/PHIL: "Omega Man""**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:

*>
*

*> In a message dated 4/2/2001 3:15:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
*

*> sentience@pobox.com writes:
*

*>
*

*> << 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.
*

*> >>
*

*> I wonder why E.Y. finds this "chilling"?
*

Turing already demonstrated that no Turing machine can solve the *general*

halting problem. This just means that, for any given problem-solving

Turing machine, you can cook up a problem that it can't solve. You're

still allowed to cook up a *different* Turing machine that *can* solve

that problem.

Godel demonstrated that the Godel Statement is unproveable within

Principia Mathematica. However, it's easy enough to produce an alternate

mathematical system that can prove the Godel Statement; just add the Godel

Statement to Principia Mathematica as an axiom. This expanded "Principia"

then has its own Godel Statement, of course, which can only be proven in a

doubly-expanded Principia. And so on.

If the Goldbach Conjecture is true as a consequence of an infinite number

of independent mathematical facts, it would mean that there's a *specific*

problem that *no* Turing machine can solve. *No* Turing machine would

*ever* be able to predict whether a Goldbach machine halts. *No*

mathematical system, however many axioms or axiom schema are added(*),

would ever be able to solve that one specific question. The problem shall

remain open from now until the end of time, forever and amen, or until

someone develops an Oracle device.

Now isn't that chilling?

(*) You could, of course, "cheat" by adding GC as an axiom without having

any idea whether or not it was true, just as a Turing machine might get

the halting problem for a GC machine correct by coincidence - but it's an

odd use of the word "proof" to describe a result that contributes nothing

whatsoever to your beliefs about the problem one way or the other.

-- -- -- -- --

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

Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence

**Next message:**Mikael Johansson: "Hungarian names (was: Re: MATH/COMP/PHIL: "Omega Man")"**Previous message:**Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "HUMOR: MATH/COMP/PHIL: "Omega Man""**In reply to:**Spudboy100@aol.com: "Re: MATH/COMP/PHIL: "Omega Man""**Next in thread:**Eugene Leitl: "Re: MATH/COMP/PHIL: "Omega Man""**Reply:**Eugene Leitl: "Re: MATH/COMP/PHIL: "Omega Man""**Reply:**John Clark: "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
*