But what you're arguing for is essentially the idea that all special-purpose devices (should not can) be replaced by universal computers. That's unreasonable. It makes good engineering and scientific sense to divvy up types of computation. The distinction in the question of whether the kind of computation we do on paper is the same as what IBM Watson does is a meaningful distinction. It's also meaningful to try to dissolve the distinction. But that doesn't devalue the tasks and thinking that rely on the distinction.
On 07/07/2016 11:18 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > When the result of a calculation is surprising, it is typical that people dig > up analytical results to test against. Usually analytical results are very > narrowly scoped and can't test the full capabilities of a calculating device. > If they could there would be no need for the calculating device. In this > situation it would be better if the theoreticians could participate in more > of the implementation of the device or at least review a list of properties > of the code that can be shown to be true. (And have confidence the > properties were true.) The vernacular of "computation" puts the device > implementation outside of the scope of the theoreticians. It's another set > of people that do that, usually from an under-specified set of requirements. > The division between the vernacular and the fancy-pants version of > computation encourages underspecification. Conversely, having a higher > level conception of computation can facilitate the engineers to move toward > the science too. -- ☢ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
