http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/23/charles-babbage-analytical-engine-victorian-computer

Dr Victor Lazzarini

Senior Lecturer

Dept. of Music

NUI Maynooth Ireland

tel.: +353 1 708 3545

Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie

I had always thought Turing was the first to hypothesis about a
machine for computing. I'd never heard of Babbage before. Looks like
some project.

On 23 October 2012 18:25, Anders Genell  wrote:
> Very impressive! Will there be a csound version for it?
>
>
>
> 23 okt 2012 kl. 18:53 skrev Victor Lazzarini :
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/23/charles-babbage-analytical-engine-victorian-computer
>
> Dr Victor Lazzarini
> Senior Lecturer
> Dept. of Music
> NUI Maynooth Ireland
> tel.: +353 1 708 3545
> Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie
>
>
>

I saw a working version of one of Babbage's machines at the Computer 
History Museum in Mountain View, California (in Silicon Valley) when I 
was there in 2008.

http://www.computerhistory.org/babbage/ (link includes video)

Phil Thomson
http://philthomson.ca/

On 12-10-23 10:33 AM, Rory Walsh wrote:
> I had always thought Turing was the first to hypothesis about a
> machine for computing. I'd never heard of Babbage before. Looks like
> some project.
>
> On 23 October 2012 18:25, Anders Genell  wrote:
>> Very impressive! Will there be a csound version for it?
>>
>>
>>
>> 23 okt 2012 kl. 18:53 skrev Victor Lazzarini :
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/23/charles-babbage-analytical-engine-victorian-computer
>>
>> Dr Victor Lazzarini
>> Senior Lecturer
>> Dept. of Music
>> NUI Maynooth Ireland
>> tel.: +353 1 708 3545
>> Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>              https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>

Is Cabbage the version C of Baddage?



Le 23/10/2012 19:42, Phil Thomson a écrit :
> I saw a working version of one of Babbage's machines at the Computer 
> History Museum in Mountain View, California (in Silicon Valley) when I 
> was there in 2008.
>
> http://www.computerhistory.org/babbage/ (link includes video)
>
> Phil Thomson
> http://philthomson.ca/
>
> On 12-10-23 10:33 AM, Rory Walsh wrote:
>> I had always thought Turing was the first to hypothesis about a
>> machine for computing. I'd never heard of Babbage before. Looks like
>> some project.
>>
>> On 23 October 2012 18:25, Anders Genell  wrote:
>>> Very impressive! Will there be a csound version for it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 23 okt 2012 kl. 18:53 skrev Victor Lazzarini 
>>> :
>>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/23/charles-babbage-analytical-engine-victorian-computer 
>>>
>>>
>>> Dr Victor Lazzarini
>>> Senior Lecturer
>>> Dept. of Music
>>> NUI Maynooth Ireland
>>> tel.: +353 1 708 3545
>>> Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body 
>> "unsubscribe csound"
>>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body 
> "unsubscribe csound"
>

Not that I was aware of, but let's put it out there....!

The seed of the idea of a computer also lies in the writings of
Liebniz, who postulated a "Characteristica universalis," a language
with perfect logic and without any ambiguity, which was supposed to do
away with philosophical conflicts by enabling them to be resolved by
calculation in a "Calculus ratiocinator," which is what we now have as
the universal computer.

The problem with this is that there cannot be a characteristica
universalis, its possibility is disproved by the incompleteness
theorems and the halting theorem and other related results.

Regards,
Mike



On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Phil Thomson  wrote:
> I saw a working version of one of Babbage's machines at the Computer History
> Museum in Mountain View, California (in Silicon Valley) when I was there in
> 2008.
>
> http://www.computerhistory.org/babbage/ (link includes video)
>
> Phil Thomson
> http://philthomson.ca/
>
>
> On 12-10-23 10:33 AM, Rory Walsh wrote:
>>
>> I had always thought Turing was the first to hypothesis about a
>> machine for computing. I'd never heard of Babbage before. Looks like
>> some project.
>>
>> On 23 October 2012 18:25, Anders Genell  wrote:
>>>
>>> Very impressive! Will there be a csound version for it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 23 okt 2012 kl. 18:53 skrev Victor Lazzarini :
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/23/charles-babbage-analytical-engine-victorian-computer
>>>
>>> Dr Victor Lazzarini
>>> Senior Lecturer
>>> Dept. of Music
>>> NUI Maynooth Ireland
>>> tel.: +353 1 708 3545
>>> Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>              https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>



-- 
Michael Gogins
Irreducible Productions
http://www.michael-gogins.com
Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com

On 23/10/2012 23:23, peiman khosravi wrote:
>
>
> On 23 October 2012 20:13, Michael Gogins  > wrote:
>
>
>
>     The problem with this is that there cannot be a characteristica
>     universalis, its possibility is disproved by the incompleteness
>     theorems and the halting theorem and other related results.
>
>     Regards,
>     Mike
>
>
> This is really interesting. What are the two theorems mentioned?
>

Discounting (ahem) dull dry but possibly concise textbooks, and assuming 
Wikipedia fails to thrill, you can choose either "Godel, Escher, Bach" 
by Douglas Hofstadter, or the later magnum opus (and now in a second 
edition, my recommendation) "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose.


Richard Dobson

Definitely two books I'd recommend too. 

Victor

On 24 Oct 2012, at 10:49, Richard Dobson wrote:

> On 23/10/2012 23:23, peiman khosravi wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 23 October 2012 20:13, Michael Gogins > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>    The problem with this is that there cannot be a characteristica
>>    universalis, its possibility is disproved by the incompleteness
>>    theorems and the halting theorem and other related results.
>> 
>>    Regards,
>>    Mike
>> 
>> 
>> This is really interesting. What are the two theorems mentioned?
>> 
> 
> Discounting (ahem) dull dry but possibly concise textbooks, and assuming Wikipedia fails to thrill, you can choose either "Godel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter, or the later magnum opus (and now in a second edition, my recommendation) "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose.
> 
> 
> Richard Dobson
> 
> 
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
> 

Dr Victor Lazzarini
Senior Lecturer
Dept. of Music
NUI Maynooth Ireland
tel.: +353 1 708 3545
Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie

The problem I have with some maths books(disclaimer: this will sound
ridiculous..) is they concentrate too much on math and don't really
contextualise the area of math they might be exploring. I'm not sure
if that makes sense, but I like to 'read' books rather than struggle
through them scratching my head! Morris Kline's Maths for non maths
heads was pretty readable. I get the impression the books mentioned
here are for those already well versed in different aspects of math?
Actually, can anyone recommend a good history of maths book?

GEB is a classic, and definitely not math heavy, giving context and
stories and examples for everything.

Though a mathematician would say that if you have context and examples
it isn't math anymore, just applied math :)

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:31 AM, Rory Walsh  wrote:
> The problem I have with some maths books(disclaimer: this will sound
> ridiculous..) is they concentrate too much on math and don't really
> contextualise the area of math they might be exploring. I'm not sure
> if that makes sense, but I like to 'read' books rather than struggle
> through them scratching my head! Morris Kline's Maths for non maths
> heads was pretty readable. I get the impression the books mentioned
> here are for those already well versed in different aspects of math?
> Actually, can anyone recommend a good history of maths book?
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>

And a lay person like myself would say if you have context and
examples it isn't math any more, just's just fun! I'm going to order
the GEB book now. In fact Victor did recommend it to me before but I
never got around to looking at it.

Rory.

hi

On 10/24/12 6:31 , Rory Walsh wrote:
> The problem I have with some maths books(disclaimer: this will sound
> ridiculous..) is they concentrate too much on math and don't really
> contextualise the area of math they might be exploring.

well, csound is full of math geeks, so you're outnumbered.
/rimshot

the link between music and math is actually very strong in electronic 
music [which is mostly generated on computers these days]. music can be 
what you want it to be, but i am of the mind that spending time 'doing' 
math [programming dsp or just contemplating goedel] is a worthwhile 
endeavor and will benefit the music you hear and create.

-- 
\js [http://or8.net/~johns/] -

nice but the sound designer on the video should be shot!

On 23 October 2012 18:42, Phil Thomson  wrote:
> I saw a working version of one of Babbage's machines at the Computer History
> Museum in Mountain View, California (in Silicon Valley) when I was there in
> 2008.
>
> http://www.computerhistory.org/babbage/ (link includes video)
>
> Phil Thomson
> http://philthomson.ca/
>
>
> On 12-10-23 10:33 AM, Rory Walsh wrote:
>>
>> I had always thought Turing was the first to hypothesis about a
>> machine for computing. I'd never heard of Babbage before. Looks like
>> some project.
>>
>> On 23 October 2012 18:25, Anders Genell  wrote:
>>>
>>> Very impressive! Will there be a csound version for it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 23 okt 2012 kl. 18:53 skrev Victor Lazzarini :
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/23/charles-babbage-analytical-engine-victorian-computer
>>>
>>> Dr Victor Lazzarini
>>> Senior Lecturer
>>> Dept. of Music
>>> NUI Maynooth Ireland
>>> tel.: +353 1 708 3545
>>> Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>              https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>

> nice but the sound designer on the video should be shot!
Why?

On 10/24/12, Nye Parry  wrote:
> nice but the sound designer on the video should be shot!
>
> On 23 October 2012 18:42, Phil Thomson  wrote:
>> I saw a working version of one of Babbage's machines at the Computer
>> History
>> Museum in Mountain View, California (in Silicon Valley) when I was there
>> in
>> 2008.
>>
>> http://www.computerhistory.org/babbage/ (link includes video)
>>
>> Phil Thomson
>> http://philthomson.ca/
>>
>>
>> On 12-10-23 10:33 AM, Rory Walsh wrote:
>>>
>>> I had always thought Turing was the first to hypothesis about a
>>> machine for computing. I'd never heard of Babbage before. Looks like
>>> some project.
>>>
>>> On 23 October 2012 18:25, Anders Genell  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Very impressive! Will there be a csound version for it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 23 okt 2012 kl. 18:53 skrev Victor Lazzarini
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/23/charles-babbage-analytical-engine-victorian-computer
>>>>
>>>> Dr Victor Lazzarini
>>>> Senior Lecturer
>>>> Dept. of Music
>>>> NUI Maynooth Ireland
>>>> tel.: +353 1 708 3545
>>>> Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>              https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>> csound"
>>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>
>

While we are at it, does anyone have a short explanation of the proof of
Godel incompleteness?  I sawa proof once and I seem to remember it was
reasonable straightforward, but I have complete forgotten it, except Godel
numbering was used.


> hi
>
> On 10/24/12 6:31 , Rory Walsh wrote:
>> The problem I have with some maths books(disclaimer: this will sound
>> ridiculous..) is they concentrate too much on math and don't really
>> contextualise the area of math they might be exploring.
>
> well, csound is full of math geeks, so you're outnumbered.
> /rimshot
>
> the link between music and math is actually very strong in electronic
> music [which is mostly generated on computers these days]. music can be
> what you want it to be, but i am of the mind that spending time 'doing'
> math [programming dsp or just contemplating goedel] is a worthwhile
> endeavor and will benefit the music you hear and create.
>
> --
> \js [http://or8.net/~johns/] -
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>
>
>
>

Incompleteness can be proved from the halting theorem. The following
is informal but can be turned into a real proof.

We proceed by contradiction. Assume we have an axiom system with
finite axioms that is complete, so every well-formed proposition or
its negation can be proved. Under this assumption of completeness,
either "program X halts", or its negation "program X doesn't halt", is
a theorem - a provable proposition - in the system. In principle, one
can then find one or the other of these propositions by enumerating
all possible proofs in the system. One can perform this enumeration
simply by alphabetically generating  all permissible sequences of
logical operations upon the axioms. But if either of these
propositions turned up, that would contradict the halting theorem. In
other words, our method of searching for proofs of halting or not
halting, would itself be a "halting program" of the sort disproved by
the halting theorem. So if the system's consistent, then one or the
other of these propositions is true, but can't be proved in the
system. That's the first incompleteness theorem.

Regards,
Mike

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:34 PM,   wrote:
> While we are at it, does anyone have a short explanation of the proof of
> Godel incompleteness?  I sawa proof once and I seem to remember it was
> reasonable straightforward, but I have complete forgotten it, except Godel
> numbering was used.
>
>
>> hi
>>
>> On 10/24/12 6:31 , Rory Walsh wrote:
>>> The problem I have with some maths books(disclaimer: this will sound
>>> ridiculous..) is they concentrate too much on math and don't really
>>> contextualise the area of math they might be exploring.
>>
>> well, csound is full of math geeks, so you're outnumbered.
>> /rimshot
>>
>> the link between music and math is actually very strong in electronic
>> music [which is mostly generated on computers these days]. music can be
>> what you want it to be, but i am of the mind that spending time 'doing'
>> math [programming dsp or just contemplating goedel] is a worthwhile
>> endeavor and will benefit the music you hear and create.
>>
>> --
>> \js [http://or8.net/~johns/] -
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>



-- 
Michael Gogins
Irreducible Productions
http://www.michael-gogins.com
Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com

But as people, can't we be sort of an outside system? And isn't it
rather easy to solve?

On 10/24/12, Michael Gogins  wrote:
> Incompleteness can be proved from the halting theorem. The following
> is informal but can be turned into a real proof.
>
> We proceed by contradiction. Assume we have an axiom system with
> finite axioms that is complete, so every well-formed proposition or
> its negation can be proved. Under this assumption of completeness,
> either "program X halts", or its negation "program X doesn't halt", is
> a theorem - a provable proposition - in the system. In principle, one
> can then find one or the other of these propositions by enumerating
> all possible proofs in the system. One can perform this enumeration
> simply by alphabetically generating  all permissible sequences of
> logical operations upon the axioms. But if either of these
> propositions turned up, that would contradict the halting theorem. In
> other words, our method of searching for proofs of halting or not
> halting, would itself be a "halting program" of the sort disproved by
> the halting theorem. So if the system's consistent, then one or the
> other of these propositions is true, but can't be proved in the
> system. That's the first incompleteness theorem.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:34 PM,   wrote:
>> While we are at it, does anyone have a short explanation of the proof of
>> Godel incompleteness?  I sawa proof once and I seem to remember it was
>> reasonable straightforward, but I have complete forgotten it, except
>> Godel
>> numbering was used.
>>
>>
>>> hi
>>>
>>> On 10/24/12 6:31 , Rory Walsh wrote:
>>>> The problem I have with some maths books(disclaimer: this will sound
>>>> ridiculous..) is they concentrate too much on math and don't really
>>>> contextualise the area of math they might be exploring.
>>>
>>> well, csound is full of math geeks, so you're outnumbered.
>>> /rimshot
>>>
>>> the link between music and math is actually very strong in electronic
>>> music [which is mostly generated on computers these days]. music can be
>>> what you want it to be, but i am of the mind that spending time 'doing'
>>> math [programming dsp or just contemplating goedel] is a worthwhile
>>> endeavor and will benefit the music you hear and create.
>>>
>>> --
>>> \js [http://or8.net/~johns/] -
>>>
>>>
>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>> csound"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Gogins
> Irreducible Productions
> http://www.michael-gogins.com
> Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>
>

It is impossible to solve, and as people we are neither provably
correct nor complete.

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Adam Puckett  wrote:
> But as people, can't we be sort of an outside system? And isn't it
> rather easy to solve?
>
> On 10/24/12, Michael Gogins  wrote:
>> Incompleteness can be proved from the halting theorem. The following
>> is informal but can be turned into a real proof.
>>
>> We proceed by contradiction. Assume we have an axiom system with
>> finite axioms that is complete, so every well-formed proposition or
>> its negation can be proved. Under this assumption of completeness,
>> either "program X halts", or its negation "program X doesn't halt", is
>> a theorem - a provable proposition - in the system. In principle, one
>> can then find one or the other of these propositions by enumerating
>> all possible proofs in the system. One can perform this enumeration
>> simply by alphabetically generating  all permissible sequences of
>> logical operations upon the axioms. But if either of these
>> propositions turned up, that would contradict the halting theorem. In
>> other words, our method of searching for proofs of halting or not
>> halting, would itself be a "halting program" of the sort disproved by
>> the halting theorem. So if the system's consistent, then one or the
>> other of these propositions is true, but can't be proved in the
>> system. That's the first incompleteness theorem.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mike
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:34 PM,   wrote:
>>> While we are at it, does anyone have a short explanation of the proof of
>>> Godel incompleteness?  I sawa proof once and I seem to remember it was
>>> reasonable straightforward, but I have complete forgotten it, except
>>> Godel
>>> numbering was used.
>>>
>>>
>>>> hi
>>>>
>>>> On 10/24/12 6:31 , Rory Walsh wrote:
>>>>> The problem I have with some maths books(disclaimer: this will sound
>>>>> ridiculous..) is they concentrate too much on math and don't really
>>>>> contextualise the area of math they might be exploring.
>>>>
>>>> well, csound is full of math geeks, so you're outnumbered.
>>>> /rimshot
>>>>
>>>> the link between music and math is actually very strong in electronic
>>>> music [which is mostly generated on computers these days]. music can be
>>>> what you want it to be, but i am of the mind that spending time 'doing'
>>>> math [programming dsp or just contemplating goedel] is a worthwhile
>>>> endeavor and will benefit the music you hear and create.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> \js [http://or8.net/~johns/] -
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>>> csound"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>> csound"
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Gogins
>> Irreducible Productions
>> http://www.michael-gogins.com
>> Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
>>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>

> It is impossible to solve, and as people we are neither provably
> correct nor complete.

So I can never be completely correct about anything?! If my teachers
at school had known about this limitation life would have been much
simpler growing up..


On 24 October 2012 18:58, Justin Smith  wrote:
> It is impossible to solve, and as people we are neither provably
> correct nor complete.
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Adam Puckett  wrote:
>> But as people, can't we be sort of an outside system? And isn't it
>> rather easy to solve?
>>
>> On 10/24/12, Michael Gogins  wrote:
>>> Incompleteness can be proved from the halting theorem. The following
>>> is informal but can be turned into a real proof.
>>>
>>> We proceed by contradiction. Assume we have an axiom system with
>>> finite axioms that is complete, so every well-formed proposition or
>>> its negation can be proved. Under this assumption of completeness,
>>> either "program X halts", or its negation "program X doesn't halt", is
>>> a theorem - a provable proposition - in the system. In principle, one
>>> can then find one or the other of these propositions by enumerating
>>> all possible proofs in the system. One can perform this enumeration
>>> simply by alphabetically generating  all permissible sequences of
>>> logical operations upon the axioms. But if either of these
>>> propositions turned up, that would contradict the halting theorem. In
>>> other words, our method of searching for proofs of halting or not
>>> halting, would itself be a "halting program" of the sort disproved by
>>> the halting theorem. So if the system's consistent, then one or the
>>> other of these propositions is true, but can't be proved in the
>>> system. That's the first incompleteness theorem.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:34 PM,   wrote:
>>>> While we are at it, does anyone have a short explanation of the proof of
>>>> Godel incompleteness?  I sawa proof once and I seem to remember it was
>>>> reasonable straightforward, but I have complete forgotten it, except
>>>> Godel
>>>> numbering was used.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> hi
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/24/12 6:31 , Rory Walsh wrote:
>>>>>> The problem I have with some maths books(disclaimer: this will sound
>>>>>> ridiculous..) is they concentrate too much on math and don't really
>>>>>> contextualise the area of math they might be exploring.
>>>>>
>>>>> well, csound is full of math geeks, so you're outnumbered.
>>>>> /rimshot
>>>>>
>>>>> the link between music and math is actually very strong in electronic
>>>>> music [which is mostly generated on computers these days]. music can be
>>>>> what you want it to be, but i am of the mind that spending time 'doing'
>>>>> math [programming dsp or just contemplating goedel] is a worthwhile
>>>>> endeavor and will benefit the music you hear and create.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> \js [http://or8.net/~johns/] -
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>>>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>>>> csound"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>>> csound"
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Michael Gogins
>>> Irreducible Productions
>>> http://www.michael-gogins.com
>>> Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com
>>>
>>>
>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>> csound"
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>

hey

On 10/24/12 14:14 , Rory Walsh wrote:
> So I can never be completely correct about anything?!

if you are married, you know this already.
/rimshot

-- 
\js [http://or8.net/~johns/] -

Sorry, you should know better than to take anything I say seriously.
Interesting topic though!

On 24 October 2012 19:21, JL Diaz  wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Rory Walsh  wrote:
>>
>> > It is impossible to solve, and as people we are neither provably
>> > correct nor complete.
>>
>> So I can never be completely correct about anything?! If my teachers
>> at school had known about this limitation life would have been much
>> simpler growing up..
>
>
>
> No, that is not the conclusion. The conclusion is that there are some
> assertions which are true (or false), but are impossible to prove (or
> disprove) using any formal system (mathemathics, logic, etc.).
>
> There are, however, a huge number of assertions about which we can be
> completely correct (they can be proved or disproved), but if we find some
> assertion for which the proof hasn't still been found, we cannot be sure if
> it is because we did not try hard enough, or because it is "one of those
> assertions which cannot be proved".
>
> --JLD

Not to worry, there's always charismatic authority!


Rory Walsh wrote:
>> It is impossible to solve, and as people we are neither provably
>> correct nor complete.
>
> So I can never be completely correct about anything?! If my teachers
> at school had known about this limitation life would have been much
> simpler growing up..
>
>
> On 24 October 2012 18:58, Justin Smith  wrote:
>> It is impossible to solve, and as people we are neither provably
>> correct nor complete.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Adam Puckett  wrote:
>>> But as people, can't we be sort of an outside system? And isn't it
>>> rather easy to solve?
>>>
>>> On 10/24/12, Michael Gogins  wrote:
>>>> Incompleteness can be proved from the halting theorem. The following
>>>> is informal but can be turned into a real proof.
>>>>
>>>> We proceed by contradiction. Assume we have an axiom system with
>>>> finite axioms that is complete, so every well-formed proposition or
>>>> its negation can be proved. Under this assumption of completeness,
>>>> either "program X halts", or its negation "program X doesn't halt", is
>>>> a theorem - a provable proposition - in the system. In principle, one
>>>> can then find one or the other of these propositions by enumerating
>>>> all possible proofs in the system. One can perform this enumeration
>>>> simply by alphabetically generating  all permissible sequences of
>>>> logical operations upon the axioms. But if either of these
>>>> propositions turned up, that would contradict the halting theorem. In
>>>> other words, our method of searching for proofs of halting or not
>>>> halting, would itself be a "halting program" of the sort disproved by
>>>> the halting theorem. So if the system's consistent, then one or the
>>>> other of these propositions is true, but can't be proved in the
>>>> system. That's the first incompleteness theorem.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:34 PM,  wrote:
>>>>> While we are at it, does anyone have a short explanation of the proof of
>>>>> Godel incompleteness?  I sawa proof once and I seem to remember it was
>>>>> reasonable straightforward, but I have complete forgotten it, except
>>>>> Godel
>>>>> numbering was used.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> hi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/24/12 6:31 , Rory Walsh wrote:
>>>>>>> The problem I have with some maths books(disclaimer: this will sound
>>>>>>> ridiculous..) is they concentrate too much on math and don't really
>>>>>>> contextualise the area of math they might be exploring.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> well, csound is full of math geeks, so you're outnumbered.
>>>>>> /rimshot
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the link between music and math is actually very strong in electronic
>>>>>> music [which is mostly generated on computers these days]. music can be
>>>>>> what you want it to be, but i am of the mind that spending time 'doing'
>>>>>> math [programming dsp or just contemplating goedel] is a worthwhile
>>>>>> endeavor and will benefit the music you hear and create.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> \js [http://or8.net/~johns/] -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>>>>              https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>>>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>>>>> csound"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>>>              https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>>>> csound"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Michael Gogins
>>>> Irreducible Productions
>>>> http://www.michael-gogins.com
>>>> Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>>              https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>>> csound"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>              https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>              https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>              https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>
>

The simplest way of saying it is that truth can't be reduced to proofs.

Incompleteness creates a dilemma in thought that applies both to
people and to Nature. It can be stated thus: are all human actions and
all natural phenomena computable - or not? (call this
"computationalism"). If so then we can dispense with truth (which
still exists but doesn't do anything for us) and just worry about
proof. If not then proof will be incomplete in some cases, and we will
need to rely on our intuition of truth, which will always be informal
(call this "realism"). I believe, as did Goedel, that realism is the
case. I do not think it is clear what Turing thought about this, or
von Neumann.

This dilemma is deep and terrible, it encapsulates some of the most
important and difficult questions in metaphysics and epistemology. To
even be able to formulate this dilemma precisely, amounts to a major
advance in philosophy in the 20th and 21st centuries.

The scientific community has tended to computationalism but it is not
actually implied by the presuppositions of science.

For example, is it possible to build a physical gadget that outputs a
truly random series of digits? If so then then realism is correct. If
not then computationalism is acceptable. (This is because a truly
random series of digits cannot be computed; this is yet another form
of the incompleteness theorem.) Quantum mechanics, which is the
scientific foundation for such a gadget, is normally interpreted as
making such a gadget possible. But even within quantum mechanics, the
question remains a dilemma. See the Kochen-Specker Theorem
(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/) and the related
Free Will Theorem
(http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf). The following
very strongly suggests it is possible to build such a gadget:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.2029.pdf.

To boil this all down even further, either we as actors and observers
are inextricably linked to the real state of the world (which is not
exactly an object in the ordinary sense of the word because it is not
"value definite") and neither we nor the world are computable, or we
are computable and the world is an object in the ordinary sense of the
word, but contains hidden information, in principle never accessible
to us, that completely determines everything that happens.

Regards,
Mike

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Rory Walsh  wrote:
> Sorry, you should know better than to take anything I say seriously.
> Interesting topic though!
>
> On 24 October 2012 19:21, JL Diaz  wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Rory Walsh  wrote:
>>>
>>> > It is impossible to solve, and as people we are neither provably
>>> > correct nor complete.
>>>
>>> So I can never be completely correct about anything?! If my teachers
>>> at school had known about this limitation life would have been much
>>> simpler growing up..
>>
>>
>>
>> No, that is not the conclusion. The conclusion is that there are some
>> assertions which are true (or false), but are impossible to prove (or
>> disprove) using any formal system (mathemathics, logic, etc.).
>>
>> There are, however, a huge number of assertions about which we can be
>> completely correct (they can be proved or disproved), but if we find some
>> assertion for which the proof hasn't still been found, we cannot be sure if
>> it is because we did not try hard enough, or because it is "one of those
>> assertions which cannot be proved".
>>
>> --JLD
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>



-- 
Michael Gogins
Irreducible Productions
http://www.michael-gogins.com
Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com

Thanks for this perspective, Mike!

Michael Gogins wrote:
> The simplest way of saying it is that truth can't be reduced to proofs.
>
> Incompleteness creates a dilemma in thought that applies both to
> people and to Nature. It can be stated thus: are all human actions and
> all natural phenomena computable - or not? (call this
> "computationalism"). If so then we can dispense with truth (which
> still exists but doesn't do anything for us) and just worry about
> proof. If not then proof will be incomplete in some cases, and we will
> need to rely on our intuition of truth, which will always be informal
> (call this "realism"). I believe, as did Goedel, that realism is the
> case. I do not think it is clear what Turing thought about this, or
> von Neumann.
>
> This dilemma is deep and terrible, it encapsulates some of the most
> important and difficult questions in metaphysics and epistemology. To
> even be able to formulate this dilemma precisely, amounts to a major
> advance in philosophy in the 20th and 21st centuries.
>
> The scientific community has tended to computationalism but it is not
> actually implied by the presuppositions of science.
>
> For example, is it possible to build a physical gadget that outputs a
> truly random series of digits? If so then then realism is correct. If
> not then computationalism is acceptable. (This is because a truly
> random series of digits cannot be computed; this is yet another form
> of the incompleteness theorem.) Quantum mechanics, which is the
> scientific foundation for such a gadget, is normally interpreted as
> making such a gadget possible. But even within quantum mechanics, the
> question remains a dilemma. See the Kochen-Specker Theorem
> (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/) and the related
> Free Will Theorem
> (http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf). The following
> very strongly suggests it is possible to build such a gadget:
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.2029.pdf.
>
> To boil this all down even further, either we as actors and observers
> are inextricably linked to the real state of the world (which is not
> exactly an object in the ordinary sense of the word because it is not
> "value definite") and neither we nor the world are computable, or we
> are computable and the world is an object in the ordinary sense of the
> word, but contains hidden information, in principle never accessible
> to us, that completely determines everything that happens.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Rory Walsh  wrote:
>> Sorry, you should know better than to take anything I say seriously.
>> Interesting topic though!
>>
>> On 24 October 2012 19:21, JL Diaz  wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Rory Walsh  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is impossible to solve, and as people we are neither provably
>>>>> correct nor complete.
>>>>
>>>> So I can never be completely correct about anything?! If my teachers
>>>> at school had known about this limitation life would have been much
>>>> simpler growing up..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, that is not the conclusion. The conclusion is that there are some
>>> assertions which are true (or false), but are impossible to prove (or
>>> disprove) using any formal system (mathemathics, logic, etc.).
>>>
>>> There are, however, a huge number of assertions about which we can be
>>> completely correct (they can be proved or disproved), but if we find some
>>> assertion for which the proof hasn't still been found, we cannot be sure if
>>> it is because we did not try hard enough, or because it is "one of those
>>> assertions which cannot be proved".
>>>
>>> --JLD
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>              https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>>
>
>
>

I feel the exact same. I'll always harbour a sense of regret that I
didn't cop on to the beauty of the subject till I was out of school.

As do I...

I like to think of mathematics as "executing a numerical perspective"... 
and composing with Csound is elegant mathematics from that perspective.


On 10/24/12 4:54 PM, Rory Walsh wrote:
> I feel the exact same. I'll always harbour a sense of regret that I
> didn't cop on to the beauty of the subject till I was out of school.

mostly for putting all that horrible music over the fantastic sounds
of the machine.

its just a sonic mess with the voiceover fighting for space with the
machine sounds and the busy music (maybe s/he shouldn't be shot though
- I believe in non-violence, sent on a course maybe)

N

On 24 October 2012 16:54, Adam Puckett  wrote:
>> nice but the sound designer on the video should be shot!
> Why?
>
> On 10/24/12, Nye Parry  wrote:
>> nice but the sound designer on the video should be shot!
>>
>> On 23 October 2012 18:42, Phil Thomson  wrote:
>>> I saw a working version of one of Babbage's machines at the Computer
>>> History
>>> Museum in Mountain View, California (in Silicon Valley) when I was there
>>> in
>>> 2008.
>>>
>>> http://www.computerhistory.org/babbage/ (link includes video)
>>>
>>> Phil Thomson
>>> http://philthomson.ca/
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12-10-23 10:33 AM, Rory Walsh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I had always thought Turing was the first to hypothesis about a
>>>> machine for computing. I'd never heard of Babbage before. Looks like
>>>> some project.
>>>>
>>>> On 23 October 2012 18:25, Anders Genell  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Very impressive! Will there be a csound version for it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 23 okt 2012 kl. 18:53 skrev Victor Lazzarini
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/23/charles-babbage-analytical-engine-victorian-computer
>>>>>
>>>>> Dr Victor Lazzarini
>>>>> Senior Lecturer
>>>>> Dept. of Music
>>>>> NUI Maynooth Ireland
>>>>> tel.: +353 1 708 3545
>>>>> Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>>              https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>>> csound"
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>> csound"
>>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
>>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>