From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Sun Aug 03 2003 - 17:19:09 EDT
George wrote:
> Simplicity isn't the issue. There isn't even a complicated
>formula or
>prescription for generating primes. The formula for the Bernoulli
>numbers, e.g., is a
>good deal more involved than that for the Fibonacci sequence
>(Bn = (2n)!Z(2n)/2^(2n-1)*pi^2n, where Z is the zeta function) but
>it's a formula into
>which you (or a computer) can plug n = 1,2, 3 .. and generate as
>many as you wish.
>The sieve doesn't work that way. What you're doing with it is
>seeing if n is prime by
>checking multiples of all the integers up to n-1 & if none of them
>is n then n is prime.
>
At the risk of pedantry, why isn't the seive a 'prescription' for generating
primes? It may not be very elegant, or even efficient, it may take a long
time, but it is a prescription, isn't it?
I would suggest this: we have different definitions of 'formula' and
'prescription'. Within the confines our our individual definitions, we are
both right. The seive is a formula or prescription in the sense that it is
"a set of algebraic symbols expressing a mathematical fact, principle, rule,
etc;" or a recursivly applied prescription. But we are getting to the point
of pedantry here. I would argue that the seive is a recursive formula
every bit as much as is the recursive formula for Fibonacci.
I think our definition debate is a side show. The more important issue is
below:
In the context of ID, is there really any difference in specifying the seive
as a generator of specificity rather than specifying Fibonacci's formula in
your sense of the word? If Dembski received a message from Mars which
counted in the Fibonacci sequence, doesn't that have structure? Can't that
be the intended message?
As for what is an isn't a formula, you can have the last word. But I am
interested in why Fibonacci wouldn't be a specifiable message.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Aug 03 2003 - 17:19:31 EDT