| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1160360 | Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A | 2012 | 4 Pages |
Abstract
Many philosophers contend that Turing’s work provides a conceptual analysis of numerical computability. In (Rescorla, 2007), I dissented. I argued that the problem of deviant notations stymies existing attempts at conceptual analysis. Copeland and Proudfoot respond to my critique. I argue that their putative solution does not succeed. We are still awaiting a genuine conceptual analysis.
Keywords
Related Topics
Social Sciences and Humanities
Arts and Humanities
History
Authors
Michael Rescorla,
