Timeline for Is there a non self-referencing non-computable function?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 15, 2009 at 22:46 | comment | added | Darsh Ranjan | I wasn't implying that your answer isn't a good one; I think it's pretty great, actually! I just don't understand the criteria by which the OP is judging our responses. (And thanks for catching the error in my comment.) | |
| Nov 14, 2009 at 1:09 | comment | added | sdcvvc | Most probably you are right. No points for me. (but, to nitpick, the reduction is from the halting problem, not to it) It's obvious that in any possible proof one has to use computability theory and show that the function is not equal to any of the computable ones. Diagonalization is the most natural way to do it. When this constitutes a "self-reference", it's hard to specify. | |
| Nov 13, 2009 at 2:12 | comment | added | Darsh Ranjan | Correct me if I'm wrong, but that function is still proved uncomputable by (eventual) reduction to the halting problem. | |
| Nov 10, 2009 at 13:59 | vote | accept | Manuel Araoz | ||
| Nov 10, 2009 at 13:59 | comment | added | Manuel Araoz | This guy understood my question | |
| Nov 9, 2009 at 14:07 | history | answered | sdcvvc | CC BY-SA 2.5 |