Re: Design patterns
In article <hhvpnd$bok$1@news.eternal-september.org>, "Alf P. Steinbach" <alfps@start.no> wrote:
* Nick Keighley:
I was trying to remember where I first came across the godel argument
"disproving" AI (Weinburg?). It sounded BS then and it sounds BS now.
p1) machines must operate by a fixed algorithm
p1a) and hence are bound by godels result.
p2) people do not have to operate by fixed algorithm and hence are not
bound by godels result.
conclusion: people can do things machines can't do
well, woopy doop. I didn't accept p1 and p2 originally. Now I'm not
convinced p1a is even applicable.
It's like winning a race by disqualifying the other contestants.
Hm, this is very OFF TOPIC, but p1 is false, and p1a is meaningless (it doesn't
follow even if p1 were true, it's a category error). p2 is meaningless.
Roger Penrose, the inventor of the above, is a genius (e.g. Penrose tiles, his
work with Hawkings, etc.), but he is also utterly mad
:--}
-- like (at least) 89%
of the US population, 10% of US scientists, and about 65% of Middle East
scientists. Blaise Pascal was, I think, another example of the kind. Just
different religious issues.
Cheers & hth.,
- Alf
--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:
http://preciseinfo.org
Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript, PHP,
organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.