Re: Transactions: good or bad?

"Costin Cozianu" <c_cozianu_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bci4e1$jej56$1_at_ID-152540.news.dfncis.de...
> Bob,
>
> Your "I disagree.Period." style has been noted.

When responding to a statement of pure unsubstantiated opinion, what style of response do you think would be more appropriate? Ultimately, regardless of style, the substance is: My opinion differs, and you are entitled to yours.

> As I also explaiend to Novoa, I don't care about your beliefs and won't
> go into philosophical debates ("or have you not been following the
> latest blah, blah..."). As Girard has noted there's no fundamental
> difference between obscurantists and blind faith-based positivists
> (scientists).

Alfredo did not initiate the philosophical discussion about thinking computers--you did. You initiated the discussion of philosophy when you started talking past Alfredo's points regarding automated theorem proving (which computers do all the time thanks in no small part to Dijkstra) when you invoked Dijkstra's name and quoted his (in)famous "submarine" observation.

You have presented a vigorous argument against anthropomorphizing computers. However, the other discussion participant did not anthropomorphize them, which makes your little pissing match rather pointless.

I am sure you have the courage and the intellectual honesty to go back to news:e4330f45.0306120712.155386c1_at_posting.google.com and to observe that Alfredo did nothing to anthropomorphize computers, did not in any way imply that computers think and did not introduce philosophy with his strictly factual observation regarding automated theorem proving. Costin, I know you have the balls to admit when you make a mistake, and I think now is a good time to behave accordingly.

If you decide to respond to what Alfredo actually said in that message and not to some imagined philosophical argument, you might move the discussion in the direction of something truly illuminating. And who knows? You might inspire some anonymous lurker to pursue a path that leads to some truly important result.

> Cheers,
> Costin
>
> Bob Badour wrote:
> > "Costin Cozianu" <c_cozianu_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:bcfed9$idmcu$1_at_ID-152540.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> >>Alfredo Novoa wrote:
> >><snip ... >
> >>
> >>>What are neurons if not little computers?
> >>>
> >>
> >>You don't know that they are computers. As a matter of fact now computer
> >>has come even remoteyl close to what neurons can do.
> >>
> >>Nor even is there any scientific theory that might give us a hint that
> >>we'll be able to construct intelligent computers.
> >
> >
> > I don't see what that has to do with automated theorem proving, which
> > computers do now.
> >
> > With all due respect, Costin, you are talking past Alfredo, and you have
> > turned your discussion with Alfredo into a pissing match. Computers do
not
> > have to think in order to prove theorems. They prove theorems without
> > thinking because "thinking" is the word we use to describe how
brains--not
> > computers--solve problems just as "swimming" is the word we use to
describe
> > how animals--not submarines--move through water.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>>According to people like Dijkstra, Girard and others, this alone
should
> >>>>allow you to draw the conclusions that computers "don't think".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>But a computer does not need to think in order to prove a theorem or
> >>>to find a stalemate in five movements.
> >>
> >>Exactly he only neeeds to compute. In order to prove Pythagora's theorem
> >>you have to think.
> >
> >
> > I disagree.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>>Computers can help people prove theorems, solve problems,etc, it will
> >>>>never be the caser that computers (the way we understand them now)
will
> >>>>create mathematics.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I still don't see any argument. But you are now talking about creating
> >>>mathematics. Your former assertion was computers can not prove
> >>>theorems and is evident it is against reality.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Against what reality ?
> >
> >
> > The one we all live in where computers actually prove theorems every
day.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Talking a little about databases :-)
> >>>
> >>>"The response to a query is a theorem. The process of deriving the
> >>>theorem from the axioms is a proof. The proof is made by manipulating
> >>>symbols according to agreed mathematical rules. The proof [that, is
> >>>the query result!] is as sound and consistent as the rules
> >>>are."(emphasis mine). A DBMS, then, is a deductive logic system: it
> >>>derives new facts from a set of asserted facts.<snip>"
> >>>
> >>>http://www.pgro.uk7.net/fp1e.htm
> >>>
> >>
> >>It has no bearing on the discussion. A database is pre-programmed for
> >>certain calculations. That's nto the same with creating proofs, which is
> >>how the discussion started.
> >
> >
> > Costin, you were wrong. Have the balls to admit it.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>>Yes, sure. I see a lot of proof checkers, symbolic calculation
engines,
> >>>>etc. Those are fine pieces of software. Most of them rely heavily on
> >>>>essential human input inm being able to "prove".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Proof checkers and proof makers. You see only what you want to see.
> >>>
> >>>Most of human proof makers also rely heavily on other human inputs. I
> >>>don't see the problem.
> >>>
> >>
> >>The difference is that humans create mathematics. Computers do not.
> >>Humans create computers.
> >
> >
> > For now. Before long, computers will create humans. Or have you not been
> > following the advances in genetic engineering and sequencing?
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Human lemma selection is not essential but it saves a lot of search
> >>>time. Only axioms and rules are essential inputs.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Do you know the Halting problem ?
> >
> >
> > Yes. It does not prevent computers from proving theorems--including on
> > occasion that a given class of programs will halt. There are plenty of
> > conjectures that humans have never proved nor disproved and some that we
may
> > never prove or disprove. The same is as true for computers as it is for
> > humans, and the halting problem applies to humans as much as it applies
to
> > computers.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>>Otherwise a computer is not able to decide when he's on a wrong,
> >>>>infinite path (aka the Halting Problem).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It is not an unsolvable problem. Humans have similar problems
> >>>sometimes.
> >>>
> >>>Humans are not near of being perfect theorem provers either.
> >>>
> >>
> >>No. Humans are creative theorem provers.
> >
> >
> > As are computers. Did you not pay attention to the part in the article
cited
> > earlier where the key strategy was to apply previously proved theorems?
In
> > other words, the computer creates the tools necessary for a proof.
> >
> >
>
Received on Sun Jun 15 2003 - 20:06:58 CEST