Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!oliveb!glacier!kestrel!ladkin
From: ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin)
Newsgroups: net.math
Subject: Re: Value of Computer Science degree
Message-ID: <5543@kestrel.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 7-Mar-86 18:21:47 EST
Article-I.D.: kestrel.5543
Posted: Fri Mar  7 18:21:47 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Mar-86 08:42:24 EST
References: <214@eddie.UUCP> <3850042@csd2.UUCP> <1182@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU>
Organization: Kestrel Institute, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 24

In article <1182@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU>, gds@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Greg Skinner) writes:
> In article <3850042@csd2.UUCP>, sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) writes:
> > Is this notion not based on Church's Thesis, which, while there is
> > a great deal of evidence to support it, is not mathematically provable?
> > 
> > Mike Sykora
> 
> This is true, however most of the objections to Church's Thesis,
> Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, etc. are that they are not yet an
> accepted branch of mathematics.

No, this is not true. And there are no objections I am aware of
to Goedel's Theorems. There cannot be to any *theorems*.
The point of Church's Thesis is that it cannot be proved, although
it may be refuted.

> Any future discussion on Church/Turing, uncomputability, etc., will be
> done in net.math.

You're optimistic. Last time it arose the net police turned out
in force on net.math and net.ai. In both places the reaction
was inexcusable.

Peter Ladkin