I took a theory of computation class with Prof. Aaronson and this brought back some fond memories. I like the fact that he's formal when he needs to be, but doe

I took a theory of computation class with Prof. Aaronson and this brought back some fond memories. I like the fact that he's formal when he needs to be, but doesn't shy away from using simple "real-life" examples when he can. Think about how many professors would use a line like: > can the human mind somehow peer into the Platonic heavens, in order to directly perceive (let's say) the consistency of ZF set theory? If the answer is no -- if we can only approach mathematical truth with the same unreliable, savannah-optimized tools that we use for doing the laundry, ordering Chinese takeout, etc. -- then it seems we ought to grant computers the same liberty of being fallible. But in that case, the claimed distinction between humans and machines would seem to evaporate. Wonderfully written. I may not understand Godel's Theorems or ZF, but i did gain an understanding about some faults in Penrose's argument.