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]