Re: RT list: Is it right to think about RT as a materialising theoretical attempt?

 
I go on as an intermediary. For the time being...

MALFET WROTE:

@Hanno Beck:

Mr. Beck is right. Not only is he right, he is technically right, which (as my brother the attorney is fond of saying) is the best kind of right. I am a poor chess player, and I'm afraid I had until a few moments ago only a vague intuition that such a thing as "en passant" even existed. When I made my description, the existence of the rule did not penetrate my consciousness, despite (it would seem) it's relevance. The fault is mine.

However, Mr. Beck is incorrect when he states that this rule requires "extra-formality". As I understand it, incorporating "en passant" increases the complexity of the formal system by precisely a factor of nine, which brings the magic number to 243 bits above the original 238. Slightly more complex, certainly, but still composed entirely of intrinsically discrete categories. En passant is indeed a strange relic of chess history, but it in no way alters the inherent computability of chess. Likewise, it in no way challenges the substance of my argument.
Received on Tue Sep 25 16:17:21 2012