At best this is closed-minded. At worst it's ignorant.
There are lots of cases where adding some formalism to intuitive
notions has produced wonderful new insights.
Take for example the denotational semantics of recursive definitions
(or loops if you prefer). These were obvious just as you
I believe, you must have gone through the homepage of this site ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/algorithm
-Abhishikt
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Algorithm Geeks group.
To post to this group,
No. your definition of an algorithm is what everyone would call a
program.
A teacher can teach an algorithm in the class and then assign it to the
class.
Each of the 200 students in the class will produce a different program
(assuming no
cheating). Does that mean that there are 200 different
I am not sure about this. In my paper I restrict. All programs ---and
hence
all algorithms--- go from powers of natural numbers N^k to powers of
natural numbers N^m. So the types of the inputs and outputs are fixed.
All the best,
Noson Yanofsky
You must think about types in a more general sense that traditional
programming language types: as values that satisfy a predicate. Then
if the predicate is allowed to be a recursive function, you get your
definition.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this
A new definition of a common, well-understood, term, which is contrary
to the older definition, is simply an abomination. Words have to have
meanings that are consistent, and well understood.
So, yes. You don't know the quality of Noson's definition.
It's wrong, and it stinks.
Algorithms are
