Timeline for Game of Chess and axiomatic systems
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:57 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Jun 12, 2013 at 15:09 | vote | accept | ARi | ||
| Jun 12, 2013 at 14:17 | comment | added | Waldemar | If I could add sth myself. My comment was just a trivia. It wasn’t intended as an objection to anything. It has nth to do with a concept of Turing computability. From strictly mathematical perspective (not computer science one), such arguments could be of interests only if you are a follower of the ultrafinitism – a rather atypical school in the philosophy of mathematics. | |
| Jun 12, 2013 at 13:40 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | As for Waldemar's comment, that objection applies universally to every decidability question. But are we really to answer every decidability question with the observation that universe is finite? Once we all know, this observation, we can agree that it is commonly known. Meanwhile, the Turing computability concept provides an extremely robust concept of idealized computability, which enables deep insight into computability issues. And I'm still interested in that concept, even though the physical universe may be finite. | |
| Jun 12, 2013 at 13:36 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Yes, I know you asked about a finite board. But on a finite board, the decidability and independence questions are trivial, since every finite set is Turing computable. | |
| Jun 12, 2013 at 13:33 | history | edited | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 440 characters in body; added 1 characters in body
|
| Jun 12, 2013 at 12:58 | history | answered | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |