On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:22 AM, harrismh777 <harrismh...@charter.net> wrote: > geremy condra wrote: >> >> Having said that, I have a greater respect for mathematics than I do >> for my own economic views, and I don't like seeing it become a >> political football. If you can prove something,*prove it*. If you >> cannot- no matter how close you might feel you are- don't claim that >> math says you're right. > > Fair enough. > > http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20091111151305785 > > > With your background, you will have no problem with this text... > although, and I do apologize, it is a long text... scroll down and begin > reading at the heading: > > An Explanation of Computation Theory for Lawyers > > By PolR > > > > The write-up is excellent, written as well or better than I could write > it myself, and is very clear and concise... yes, even a lawyer can > understand it.
This is not a proof. This is an argument. There's a very big difference. To be clear, this article makes basically the same mistake you do- you assume that a program is exactly equivalent to its computation, while the article makes the additional and even more wrong assumption that a program is perfectly defined by its CPU instructions. It's to your credit that you avoided advancing this obviously incorrect claim, but you still haven't addressed my earlier points. Geremy Condra -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
