Xref: utzoo talk.religion.misc:7811 comp.ai:2297 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!sei!sei.cmu.edu!firth From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,comp.ai Subject: Re: The Ignorant assumption Message-ID: <7167@aw.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 27 Sep 88 15:07:41 GMT References: <1369@garth.UUCP> <2346@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <1383@garth.UUCP> <1929@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> <12512@duke.cs.duke.edu> Sender: netnews@sei.cmu.edu Reply-To: firth@bd.sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, SEI, Pgh, Pa Lines: 11 In article <12512@duke.cs.duke.edu> nlt@grad3.cs.duke.edu (Nancy L. Tinkham) writes: > The claim of the Church-Turing thesis is that the class of functions >computable by a Turing machine corresponds exactly to the class of functions >which can be computed by some algorithm. No it isn't. The claim is that every function "which would naturally be regarded as computable" can be computed by a Turing machine. At least, that's what Turing claimed, and he should know. [A M Turing, Proc London Math Soc 2, vol 442 p 230]