Carl, the Institute and Jeannette Wing plan to think more
together. She was very upfront about her general ignorance about
complexity, and could only say that "intuitively" she felt they might
have something to say to each other. Her list of examples of
computational thinking--which I
Nick - the snippet below illustrates the key problem with invoking category
errors. I think giving the infinitesimal point speed and direction makes
sense and you do not. You see a category error and I do not. So how do we
adjudicate? We can't: there's no objective methodology for saying if a
categ
How about this to solve all our first mile data problems in Santa Fe
http://www.dlr.de/tsx/start_en.htm
TerraSAR-X laser -- Speed its moving at = 15,000 mph -- Distance its
transmitting = 3000 miles ---Symmetrical Data Rate average - 5,5gig (
Thats only on its first iteration it has exchang
Owen wrote:
>> I'm not sure how many of us were there, but I found the talk quite
>> thought provoking.
>>
>> An earlier version of her slides are here:
>>http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wing/www/ct-and-tc-long.pdf
>> .. and a more narrative article is here:
>>
A recent one from bioinfo
Pamela McCorduck wrote:
> Marcus and I heard a different talk. I liked very much what Wing had
> to say about computational thinking. She didn't say this must replace
> all other kinds of thinking, nor did she say computing is the answer
> to everything. She seemed to me to offer a set of to
Let me see if I've followed David's argument... science doesn't need math
and it doesn't need to possess any predictive power and - given the
cultural/individual specificity of metaphors - reproducibility seems kinda
optional. So exactly what does something need to make it science?
Robert
On Sat,
Why computational thinking rather than complexity thinking or (egad)
category thinking or political ethics or conflict resolution or good
design or shop or? What makes computational thinking more enabling
(if not more "fundamental")?
ct
Owen Densmore wrote:
> I'm not sure how many of
I've began a complextalk blog before but fell behind on using it. It's
intended to be a casual narrative of the daily happenings at Santa Fe
Complex. I just updated it and will try to keep it current. It is open
for comments, too. If it gets hits, I'll keep it going.
Thanks to those of you w
I'm not sure how many of us were there, but I found the talk quite
thought provoking.
An earlier version of her slides are here:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wing/www/ct-and-tc-long.pdf
.. and a more narrative article is here:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wing/www/publications/Wing
So maybe simulated annealing is another way of looking at it. But...
In the tradition-orientation that Corfield is describing, the "hill
climbers" would be talking to each other, and refining their ears. In
any case, I don't view this as necessarily an optimization problem (see
the companion
Günther Greindl wrote:
> Hmm - in the background he will have hypotheses; knowledge which is
> implicit in the neural weigthing in his brain (representing the evidence
> he has seen and categorized). So the physician has a mathematical
> (probabilistic) model of the situation, albeit maybe not
Marcus and I heard a different talk. I liked very much what Wing had
to say about computational thinking. She didn't say this must
replace all other kinds of thinking, nor did she say computing is the
answer to everything. She seemed to me to offer a set of tools,
mental and metal, that
...or vice-versa, depending on which sort of mathematician you are
today...I think I would be more content with a universe that continually
reinvents itself rather than one that waits patiently to be discovered.
The former seems more happily complex. Pi would be more conserved over
time than
peter wrote:
> So we have computational thinking CT, What fears that arises to
> develop into PCCT "Politically Correct CT" or the only right way to
> think " CTCT Correct Thinking CT ( Guided by suitably well minded
> intelligentsia just like CCCP ) especially targeting young
> manipulatabl
In the spirit of helping to nurture a new form of discourse (or a new
embodiment of a fairly familiar form, the "evolving discussion"), I
have been trying to participate in Nick's "Noodlers Corner".
http://www.sfcomplex.org/wiki/NoodlersIndex
I normally experience FRIAM mail as
Prof David West wrote:
> A computer program, currently, is an attempt to mathematize; and the
> goal of traditional computer science is to refine the process of
> creating a computer program to the purely formal / mathematical. It is
> still an attempt, because a huge gulf remains between what I w
Interesting Talk by Jeanette Wing who's online handle is Dragonlady (
wonderfull mythical pun ) that would make it DLCT
So we have computational thinking CT, What fears that arises to develop
into PCCT "Politically Correct CT" or the only right way to think "
CTCT Correct Thinking CT ( Guid
> >
> > But to make it into science, which means that you can make predictive
> > models certainly means mathematizing the theory.
> >
>
As a human being, and as an anthropologist, I can make predictions and
create predictive models based on a largely non-conscious understanding
of cultur
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:39:40 -0600, "Carl Tollander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Perhaps the invention is intrinsic? The either/or conundrum seems
> artificial, unless one buys into a narrower definition of mathematician.
>
> C.
the mathematician is channeling the universe as it expresses its
A computer program, currently, is an attempt to mathematize; and the
goal of traditional computer science is to refine the process of
creating a computer program to the purely formal / mathematical. It is
still an attempt, because a huge gulf remains between what I want and
can say about what I
Carl et al,
Yes, perhaps mathematics is built into our brains which seem (again speaking
out of innocent ignorance) function somewhat as a binary electrical system.
And perhaps our nervous system reflects the "nature" of the universe.
As many philosophers, e.g., Whitehead, have postulated, kn
Glen,
> I agree with your gist but not your specific words. [grin]
:-)
> All pursuit
> of truth is science, regardless of the language. So, developing new
> theories with metaphor _is_ science (as long as the theories are testable).
Ok, I agree. I like your distinction (below) between coars
22 matches
Mail list logo
