Re: Transactions: good or bad?

"Costin Cozianu" <c_cozianu_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bcon23$kt4js$1_at_ID-152540.news.dfncis.de...

<useless pissing match snipped>

> >>Read my leaps: chess has a finite model, chess *is* finite. If you're
> >>not able to see the obvious, you come borderline to trolling.
> >
> > It is finite only because the number of turns is limited.
>
> No it is not. The number of turns in chess is not limited by anything.
>
> > The number
> > of turns is the halt condition, if not we could fall in infinite
> > loops.
> >
>
> No, that's elementary: you don't have to fall into an infinite loop
> unless you don't get it.
>
> Since the number of positions you have to evaluate is finite it doesn't
> matter that the number of moves is infinite. The only thing you care for
> in a chess program is to assign a value to a position and choose the
> next best move.
>
> Now, do you finally get it ?

A turing machine only has to determine its next move, but that doesn't make the halting problem disappear. Do you have a proof that all chess games halt? Much of your previous philosophizing hangs upon the proof.

> >>Oh, strong AI has been largely discredited as a scientific hoax by now.
> >
> >
> > And such discredit was also discredited. You should read Copeland or
> > shut up.
> >
>
> I read what I want to read and what does me good. Philosophy is for
> weenies, you read it if you like it, if you don't you haven't lost
> anything. If you want a good AI book, I'd recommend you Russell and
Norvig.
>
> Real man read Mathematics :)

How would someone who lacks the balls or the intellectual honesty to admit when he was wrong know anything about real men?

> >>You don't "prove" emipirical theories. We were talking about formal
> >>theories here. Popper told you the difference ?
> >
> >
> > Computers can not prove theorems is not a formal theory.
> >
>
> Oh, yes it is. Computers are entirely built and work upon formal theory.
>
> It's clearer and clearer that reading Popper didn't do you much good.
> Try Dijkstra, Parnas, Knuth, Wirth, Hoare. They have more substance,
> they don't ever speak non-sense or speculations, and the reading will do
> you good.
>
> A good software engineer should not ever have enough time to read the
> likes of Popper :) There's too much science to read in our profession to
> worry about the Poppers of the world.

Intellectual honesty is the single most important personality trait of a good software engineer. Lots of people who lack the trait delude themselves into believing they are good just as they delude themselves about most things. Delusion is, after all, the natural outcome of intellectual dishonesty.

You already demonstrated you lack the qualifications to form valid opinions about good software engineers.

> >>, but for
> >>all intents and pruposes human brain is part of what common language
> >>calls it "nature".
> >
> >
> > Then prove that we can not emulate the behavior of a "natural thing"
> > using computers, taking into account that computers are not restricted
> > to the Von Newman architecture and Turing Machines equivalents.
>
> Do you know of any computer in existence that is proven more powerful
> than Turing equivalent?

Do you know of any brain in existence that is proven more powerful than Turing equivalent? Or do you expect us to share your faith?

> > The charge of the proof is on your side.
>
> Here you show your lack of mathematical culture and indoctrination with
> philosophical nonsense.
>
> It is not me who needs to disproof your beliefs. Until you haven't
> constructed a formal theory that fully supports your beliefs, your
> beliefs that a formal theory can be constructed is worth petty nothing.

Just as your beliefs and Girard's beliefs are worth nothing. You have never addressed Alfredo's strictly factual observations and you insist on introducing philosophy to construct straw men only to burn by denigrating philosophy. You are only fooling yourself.

> >>>Which ones?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Search in finite models with proof.
> >
> >
> > If we find a proof in a search in a finite model it does not
> > invalidate the proof.
> >
>
> All it does it invalidates the method you used to claim that computers
> are not less a good theorem solver than humans.

He never made any such claim. You made the claim that humans are better theorem provers, and the onus still lies on you to prove your claim. So far, you have offered nothing but unsubstantiated assertion, appeals to authority by quoting the unsubstantiated assertions of others mixed with lots of handwaving and chest beating. Singe ridicule! On ne s'inquiète pas qui pisse plus loin ou plus longtemps.

> >>No. You need to be able to understand what theorems are significant and
> >>what theorems are not interesting.
> >
> >
> > And it is orthogonal to the discussion. The discussion is about the
> > proof of given conjectures.
> >
>
> In order to prove a given conjecture a computer is going to have to
> decide which theorems are not important. Otherwise for any non-trivial
> theory you can prove an infinite number of theorems.

You have yet to prove that no computer can employ strategies to prune decision trees. Are you going to present such a proof or are you just going to wave your hands around?

> >>In so doing humans enhance their ability to construct Mathematics over
> >>an infinite domain of all the junk that may otherwise come out by
> >>mechanizing axioms and inference rules.
> >
> >
> > Humans can not search in an infinite domain. The number of symbols you
> > can handle in your life is finite.
> >
>
> Yes, but as a human, I get to choose the important symbols. Computers
> don't have this privilege, unless specifically directed by a human.

Where is your proof of this conjecture? Received on Wed Jun 18 2003 - 21:12:25 CEST