Xref: utzoo talk.religion.misc:7892 comp.ai:2318
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!humu!uhccux!lee
From: lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,comp.ai
Subject: Re: The Ignorant assumption
Message-ID: <2445@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Date: 30 Sep 88 14:00:44 GMT
References: <13791@mimsy.UUCP>
Organization: University of Hawaii
Lines: 23

From article <13791@mimsy.UUCP>, by nau@mimsy.UUCP (Dana S. Nau):
" In article <7202@aw.sei.cmu.edu> firth@bd.sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
" ...
" < of as a mapping
" < 
" < 	{0,1} => 0|1
" ...
" As far as I can see, what you have defined is not a function.  A function is

There are a couple (>=2) of things I don't understand about this discussion:

Why does it matter whether Turing machines compute functions?  If one
wants to compute non-functional relations, why not just define the
machines accordingly?  If there's a terminological problem, then call
the machines something else.

What does it matter to Church's thesis whether what is computed is
a function?  Sometimes the thesis is phrased using the word function,
but is that essential to the thesis?

And anyhow, why can't `0|1' be considered a single value?

		Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu