On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:20:25AM -0400, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> > wrote: > > > > OK fine, but can you find the exact solutions to differential equations > >> better than Mathematica? I don't think so. > >> > > > > > Not me personally, but the professional mathematicians studying DEs > > definitely. > > > Bullshit. Chess programs have been beating their programers for over 20 > years and Mathematica can beat its programers too. >
Rubbish - to my knowledge, not one new DE solution has been found by Mathematica. > > There are new solutions being discovered all the time, > > > And Mathematica is being upgraded all the time. Of course - it's database is upgraded by the solutions being found by mathematicians. > > > and its by humans, > > > But those humans don't get credit for doing that because they were taught > by other humans; it's Einstein's teachers who should get the credit for > discovering relativity not Einstein. But then again, Einstein's teachers > had teachers too and so.... > What? Einstein's teachers didn't discover relativity, Einstein did. A mathematician discovering a new DE solution discovered it, not er doctoral supervisor. If Mathematica discovered new DE solutions, then mathematica would be creative. But to my knowledge, Mathematica has never done that. A new DE solution is more likely to come from an evolutionary algorithm, such as John Koza's Genetic Programming, but all his program has come up with is some new antenna and circuits. I suspect there's more money in patentable circuits than in unpatentable solutions to DEs, which may have something to do with that. > > Mathematica's integrate operator (and the equivalent desolve operator) is > > basically a convenient interface that applies standard algorithms such as > > [blah blah] > > > > Anything no matter how grand and impressive and awe inspiring can be broken > down into smaller parts that are themselves a little less grand and > impressive and awe inspiring than the whole, and those parts can themselves > be broken down into sub-parts that are even less grand and impressive and > awe inspiring. Eventually you will come to a part that is pedestrian and > dull as dishwater (like a switch that can only be on or off); do we then > conclude that grand and impressive and awe inspiring things don't exist? > > > Creativity is not related to difficulty of the task. > > > > Creativity is a subjective judgement made by a observer of a task performed > by somebody else, it is not inherent in the task itself. Therefore it's > true that creativity is not related to the absolute difficulty of the task > but it is related to how difficult it would be for you to do it; so what's > creative to you might not be for me. > Creativity is essentially the creation of meaningful information. Now there is a lot of ambiguity and fuzziness about that, but difficulty is not part of that. When Jackson Pollock sloshed some paint around on canvas, he was being wonderfully creative. But it didn't look like much effort was actually required. > > > > I agree that image recognition is computationally difficult. But its not > > creative. > > > You say that for only one reason, you find image recognition to be easy. > But if it took you a month of intense concentration to tell the difference > between a whale and a watermelon and then you met a man who could tell the > difference between a Grey Whale and a Humpback Whale in one second flat > you'd say he was wonderfully creative. > No I wouldn't. I might call him many things, but not creative. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
