On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 kenneth.mackendrick at utoronto.ca wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:04:40 +0200 (SAST) Peter van Heusden
> wrote:
> [description of the halting problem snipped]
> >
> > Now, a computer can't solve this problem. My question is, can anyone?
>
> ? If I'm not mistaken, Hegel's distinction between bad and true
infinity
> 'solves' (hahhahahhha) this problem. A bad infinity is where
one finite H is
> defined through not being something else (H halting other programs -
> determinate negation). The true infinity is when it returns to
itself (H fed to
> itself) - it forms an impossible circle and the 'vanishing
mediator' of H is
> the 'remainder' - which, of course, is nothing (Hegel's pure
being)... the
> essence of H is its own self-relating negativity... quality, quantity,
> quantum...
Yeah, but we're all pretty much agreed that Hegel was talking bollocks
here, right?
Anyway, I'm no authority on Hegel, but it seems to me that this 'solution'
requires a constant state of not examining itself. Which doesn't get you
much further than a state of paranoid indecision.
Peter
=========
Hegel, like Marx, would have loved LISP and a good dose of iterative set theory if they were around [anyone know if M knew of Cantor's work?]. H.'s "bad infinity" looks like a crude attempt to get recursiveness from Aristotelian approaches to bivalence.
Ian