Re: Pizza Example

From: Anthony W. Youngman <>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 22:30:08 +0100
Message-ID: <>

In message <6VFec.1415$>, Eric Kaun <> writes
>> It doesn't just "appear" intuitive -- it typically IS more
>> intuitive. --dawn
>Maybe, but I still wouldn't base a computational model on intuition. After
>all, the aim of symbolic logic (and Leibniz's Dream) is to automate
>reasoning through sheer symbol manipulation - precisely what formal means
>(pertaining only to form - symbolic representation). So we're at something
>of a crossroads - we either proceed in a direction that continues to make
>intuitive sense (and if it's to end users, I'd place little stock in this),
>or we proceed down a path of greater automation.

Except ...

While I don't understand Godel that well (Obviously I grok Heisenberg better), isn't this exactly what he proved can NOT be done?

That any formal logic powerful enough to describe itself is either trivial or incapable of closure? It's all very well Leibnitz having a dream, but that doesn't mean it can be fulfilled.

And why dismiss the intuitive sense of users? Don't be arrogant! Surely that's why so many computer projects go wrong - the computer experts think they're so clever that they ignore the users, and then they're surprised when the whole thing screws up!


Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
HEX wondered how much he should tell the Wizards. He felt it would not be a
good idea to burden them with too much input. Hex always thought of his reports
as Lies-to-People.
The Science of Discworld : (c) Terry Pratchett 1999
Received on Thu Apr 15 2004 - 23:30:08 CEST

Original text of this message