Timeline for What is... a grossone?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 28, 2015 at 11:19 | history | bounty ended | Mikhail Katz | ||
| Dec 25, 2015 at 9:54 | comment | added | Daniel Moskovich | @AndrejBauer I wonder whether you could comment on Lolli's answer, in which he explains the sense in which this is less than nonstandard analysis (and presents this in a positive light)? | |
| Dec 23, 2015 at 14:42 | comment | added | Andrej Bauer | @JoelDavidHamkins: sure, it's how one can get standard arithmetic started, and of course there is much to be said after that. | |
| Dec 23, 2015 at 14:34 | vote | accept | Mikhail Katz | ||
| Dec 23, 2015 at 14:28 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | @AndrejBauer, isn't it a bit less than nonstandard arithmetic, because the author does not develop or even mention the connections with what is already very well understood about the topic? It seems to me that there is very little that is new in this topic, and basically nothing to support the grand claims being made about it. | |
| Dec 23, 2015 at 14:17 | history | edited | Andrej Bauer | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 337 characters in body
|
| Dec 21, 2015 at 20:48 | comment | added | Andrej Bauer | It's just non-standard arithmetic, unless I am missing something. | |
| Dec 21, 2015 at 19:51 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @Andrej, such instructions were not provided by Sergeyev. But Lolli's goal is a different one: he seems to seek an axiomatisation of a mathematical background (rather than a description of a computer algorithm). I was hoping to get some feedback on Lolli's work as that of a logician, evaluated by a logician. This was the purpose of my original post as stated in the question. | |
| Dec 21, 2015 at 18:37 | comment | added | Andrej Bauer | Well, for a serious treatment of a computational model one should give clear instructions on how the model computes. The instructions should be sufficiently detailed so that we can use the model without any doubts or ambiguity in new situations that were not anticipated or covered by examples. Is there such an account? | |
| Dec 21, 2015 at 14:19 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | Thanks, @Andrej, I was hoping that somebody of your caliber will take a look at Lolli's paper. It seems to me that Lolli not merely claims that Sergeyev proposes a revolutionary new approach to the foundations of mathematics, but also tries to axiomatize Sergeyev's approach. If you get a chance to take a look at some of the details of this I would much appreciate it. | |
| Dec 21, 2015 at 12:41 | history | edited | Andrej Bauer | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2311 characters in body
|
| Dec 21, 2015 at 12:30 | comment | added | Andrej Bauer | It was easy to find: theinfinitycomputer.com/arithmetic.html | |
| Dec 21, 2015 at 12:29 | comment | added | Andrej Bauer | If you can point me to an explanation of the "Infinity computer" and the supposed new revolutionary way of computing with infinity, I will comment on it, too. | |
| Dec 21, 2015 at 12:18 | history | edited | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
spelling typo correction
|
| Dec 21, 2015 at 12:04 | comment | added | Daniel Moskovich | As I understand things, Yaroslav's primary motivation is a notion of infinity suitable for computer-science ("numerics"). None of the "takedowns" really talk about this point... I suggest that we're probably not hearing the whole story, and thus I'm glad the question has a bounty and I hope we hear more perspectives if there are any :-) | |
| Dec 21, 2015 at 10:03 | history | answered | Andrej Bauer | CC BY-SA 3.0 |