User: rjdegraaf

Re:Roger Penrose's argument is sound

On: Calculating A Theoretical Boundary To Computation

sigh,...

Re:Roger Penrose's argument is sound

On: Calculating A Theoretical Boundary To Computation

It's syntactically correct but meaningless.

That is incorrect; Gödel's proof has preservation of meaning in the primitive recursive truths through the Correspondence Lemma.

Re:Roger Penrose's argument is sound

On: Calculating A Theoretical Boundary To Computation

I've never seen him once offer actual proof of any such conjecture

In this lecture he describes the Goodstein's Theorem, which has an independence proof; it cannot be proven by ordinary induction (peano arithmatic 1st order).

Re:Roger Penrose's argument is sound

On: Calculating A Theoretical Boundary To Computation

Instead of linking to a article claiming it will demonstrate why penrose got it wrong, why not simply explain it? Now it looks like it is eminence based.

Roger Penrose's argument is sound

On: Calculating A Theoretical Boundary To Computation

I guess the main argumentation of Roger Penrose is that Godel Incompleteness Theorem can not be understood by a computer, because it is computationally undecidable in structure. Well humans can and are therefor outside computation.

Ideas behind SuperSymmetry

On: Virtual Grid Supercomputer Goes (Partly) Online

In case somebody is wondering what LHC might discover, Frank Wilczek explains in his lecture ' The World's Numerical Recipe' the ideas behind Super-Symmetry.

Rob de Graaf