On Oct 14, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
> Thanks John,
> I thought that should have been pretty obvious from the beginning, but your
>rephrasing of it is much more precise than mine was. (01)
Yes, John, an excellent clarification. (02)
> Thanks for the clarification. Your version would not have started the mess I
>seem to have triggered. (03)
Not so. The "mess" was started by your bogus claims about the connection
between your notion of iteration and Gödel's theorem (which you have yet to
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:40 AM
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] HOL decidability [Was: using SKOS forcontrolled
> values for controlledvocabulary]
> On 10/14/2010 1:15 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
>> what I meant by the statement "there is no function that can iterate the
>> primes", and perhaps I should have originally said "directly, without
>> iterating other types", which seems to have set off this mess.
> The word 'iterate' seems to be the trigger that created the mess.
> I would interpret your wish in the following terms:
> Find a closed-form expression that defines a function Pr(n), which
> for any positive integer n produces the n-th prime.
> In other words, you want a statement of the following form that
> computes the n-th prime:
> Pr(n) = some algebraic expression that uses n, but does not
> contain any nested or implied loop or recursive function.
> I agree that no such definition exists.
> John (06)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (07)