Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Kreisel's squeezing argument shows that informal notions of computability resist full capture by any single formal provability criterion.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Church-Turing thesis remains unrefuted: every intuitive notion of computability proposed has reduced to Turing-computable functions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Kreisel's squeezing argument conflates 'provability about computability' with 'computability itself'—capturing the former doesn't require capturing the latter.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Claims about informal notions resisting capture lack empirical support; no concrete counterexample of intuitively computable yet formally uncomputable functions exists.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Church-Turing thesis captures computable functions, yet Kreisel showed informal notions extend to intuitive calculability beyond formal systems.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Different formal systems (Turing machines, lambda calculus, recursion theory) prove equivalent, yet mathematicians recognize computable tasks outside all.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Gödel's incompleteness implies no single formal criterion can capture all truths about what is computable in our informal mathematical practice.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.