Re: Pizza Example
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 21:45:26 GMT
"Anthony W. Youngman" <wol_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> In message <6VFec.1415$4A7.960_at_newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>, Eric Kaun
> <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> 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.
> >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
> >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
> >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.
I can't admit to understanding all of the nuances of Godel (or even Leibniz), but this doesn't sound right - Leibniz's dream concerns (among other things) the manipulation of formula and symbols, not the closure of logical systems.
I'm not dismissing the intuitive sense of users. Rather the opposite: attempting to systematize based on intuition would require that I impose my sense of "meaning" on the intuition. Silly. Instead, automate what can be automated, and reduce intuitions to predicates, or else leave them alone as "raw data".
> 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!
I don't think we're talking about the same thing at all - why not just use sketchpads and stop dismissing the intuitions of users? ASCII/Unicode are just so limiting...