OK. But you did express that you thought the distinction (between paper math and computation) isn't meaningful (at least not in perpetuity). Yet you admit that (in perpetuity) we should preserve the distinction at least for the sake of efficiency/performance. You have to admit that can seem paradoxical.
Re: _technical_ papers being literate computer programs ... I agree. But a recurring theme in this forum is the poor job journalists do communicating scientific efforts. Analogously, we can predict that when/if all technical papers are literate programs, we'll have a similar problem. This same conversation will continue to occur when the Nicks of the world ask the you-folks of the world what some program means. So the distinction will persist as long as there are general intelligences (Nicks) attempting to parse domain-specific artifacts. The solution you imply (a plethora of easily instantiable models on universal computers) is a good one, I think. That way the generally intelligent, specifically ignorant can at least understand special-purpose devices through analogical reasoning. But you could have said that outright without the above paradox! 8^) On 07/07/2016 01:00 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
I don't think special purpose devices should be replaced by universal computers. Universal computers are slow for some things. However, universal computers should have as high of fidelity models of those devices as possible. It should be possible "in the future" to understand, with the precision of a program on a universal computer, the justification of every decision leading to a device and thus the outputs of the device. Technical papers should basically be literate computer programs.
-- ☣ 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
