[FOM] Counterfactuals in relative computability theory

[Colin McLarty]

Church's Thesis would be shown false if someone exhibited a provably
non-recursive function together with a procedure which every competent
judge agrees you can always use, successfully, in finite time, to calculate
every value of that function.

I am not waiting for this to happen.  But this is what it would be to show
Church's Thesis is false.

Compare how people did, in fact, convince themselves that not every
effective function is primitive recursive.

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:18 AM, <W.Taylor at math.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:

> Suddenly I am at sea.
>
> you only mean them to be denials  of the
>> Church-Turing thesis or things implying that denial.
>>
>
> Obviously the above presupposes that CTT is something that is
> either true or false.   I had assumed it was merely a convention
> or definition of "computable" (natural-domained-)function.
>
> Can someone please enlighten us as to how it could be false?
>
> -- Bill Taylor
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
> _______________________________________________
> FOM mailing list
> FOM at cs.nyu.edu
> http://www.cs.nyu.edu/mailman/listinfo/fom
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/fom/attachments/20160812/0d0c67fa/attachment-0001.html>