plexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Isomorphism between computation and philosophy
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Nicholas Thompson
wrote:
And I am trying to get folks here to confront the problem of putting in
their own words things they think are obvious for other folks for whom
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Nicholas Thompson <
nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> And I am trying to get folks here to confront the problem of putting in
> their own words things they think are obvious for other folks for whom
> these
> things are not obvious.
This reminds me of Einstei
18, 2013 8:06 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Isomorphism between computation and philosophy
I was suggesting the contributors to this chat could "go read the Wikipedia
article" to give them something useful to say to the beautiful woman
Joseph Spinden wrote at 04/17/2013 07:21 PM:
> Owen is right that there are N! ways to map a set of N objects 1-1, onto
> another set of N objects. The first object can go to 1 of N objects, the
> next to 1 of N-1, etc. That's pretty standard.
Well, saying there are N! maps is different from sayin
On 4/18/13 7:57 AM, Joseph Spinden wrote:
"Another result (the unsolvability of the halting problem) may be
interpreted as implying the impossibility of constructing a program
for determining whether or not an arbitrary given program is free of
'loops'."
Well, compilers can't reason about all
13 8:21 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Isomorphism between computation and philosophy
Owen is right that there are N! ways to map a set of N objects 1-1, onto
another set of N objects. The first object can go to 1 of N objects, the
next to 1 of N-1, etc. Th
"Another result (the unsolvability of the halting problem) may be
interpreted as implying the impossibility of constructing a program for
determining whether or not an arbitrary given program is free of 'loops'."
Martin Davis, Computability and Unsolvability, 1958
--Joe
On 4/17/13 10:43 P
tiful woman would accept "go read the Wikipedia
> article" as am answer.
>
> N
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com ] On
> Behalf Of Joseph Spinden
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 8:21 PM
> To: The Friday Morning
Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Joseph Spinden
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 8:21 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Isomorphism between computation and philosophy
Owen is right that there are N! ways to ma
Owen,
Ask Dede to provide a translation, would you?
Nick
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Isomorphism between computation and
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Isomorphism between computation and philosophy
In summary, Nick: the problem appears to be two-fold:
1. The real day job is taking up every spare minute of my time, and
2. you guys clearly love to discuss abstraction for the seemingly sole
sake of discussion way, way
ty Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Isomorphism between computation and philosophy
Owen is right that there are N! ways to map a set of N objects 1-1, onto
another set of N objects. The first object can go to 1 of N objects, the
next to 1 of N-1, etc. That's pretty standard.
As to the Halt
The problem isn't really looping vs stopping; it's searching vs. finding.
Searching might be expressed iteratively (as a loop) or recursively. But
what the program is really doing is looking for an element that satisfies
some criterion. In many cases, it's not known in advance whether one
exists. T
You can state it pretty simply: There is no algorithm that can decide
whether an arbitrary computer program will ever stop (Halt), or will
loop endlessly..
Definitely a problem for software testing..
Joe
On 4/17/13 10:15 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
Nick: its simple. I married her. Just afte
Nick: its simple. I married her. Just after explaining Godel to the
philosophy department, and to her Ex who promptly left philosophy and
became a cardio doctor. True.
In terms of the Halting problem, is Wikipedia too formal? The first two
paragraphs:
In computability theory, the halting prob
am [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Steve
> Smith
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 17, 2013 7:25 PM
>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Isomorphism between computation and philosophy
>
> ** **
>
> Owen -
Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Isomorphism between computation and philosophy
Owen -
Its starting to get lonely here!
It is kind of a "dogpile" here... with Doug now perched on top!
I am *sympathetic* with your desire to have the (mostly formal) language you
are mos
Owen is right that there are N! ways to map a set of N objects 1-1, onto
another set of N objects. The first object can go to 1 of N objects, the
next to 1 of N-1, etc. That's pretty standard.
As to the Halting Problem, Why not start with the first few lines of the
Wikipedia article ? That is
I believe we might actually, for a change, be cutting a bit closer to the
bone here.
-Doug
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
: "Annoyingly Insensitive" compounded with "dissociated from any specific
> instance".Wait... maybe that *is* his use?
>
> ob·tuse
> /əbˈt(y)o͞os
Lee -
I feel a bit like Beavis (or is it Butthead?) in the light of Doug's
"abstruse" comment and my introspections on "abstract" v "obtuse".
"Heh Heh Heh... he said 'Hauptvermutung' !"
I appreciate your use of "MathGerman" and "MathEng" which I think
reinforces my point (for anyone who h
Nick asks Owen:
> So, Owen, you meet a beautiful woman at a cocktail party. She seems
> intelligent, not a person to be fobbed off, but has no experience with
> either Maths or Computer Science. She looks deep into your eyes, and asks
> "And what, Mr. Densmore, is the halting problem?" You fin
Owen -
Its starting to get lonely here!
It is kind of a "dogpile" here... with Doug now perched on top!
I am *sympathetic* with your desire to have the (mostly formal) language
you are most familiar/comfortable with to apply more *directly* to one
you may merely have romantic ideas about.
in
>> psuedo-natural language) rather than *in spite of* the same?
>>
>>
>> - Steve
>>
>> “But Mr. Densmore: what is the problem of software verification.”
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I would bat my eyes, by my eyebrows would get in the way.
> - Steve
>
> “But Mr. Densmore: what is the problem of software verification.”****
>
> ** **
>
> I would bat my eyes, by my eyebrows would get in the way.
>
> ** **
>
> Nick
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]
> *On
ensmore: what is the problem of software verification."
I would bat my eyes, by my eyebrows would get in the way.
Nick
*From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Owen
Densmore
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:03 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coff
Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Isomorphism between computation and philosophy
Owen Densmore wrote at 04/17/2013 01:53 PM:
> Er,, of course there are many, right? With two finite sets of size N
> there are N! 1-1, onto unique mappings, I believe.
Heh, the
ng Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Cc: Frank Wimberly
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Isomorphism between computation and philosophy
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Nicholas Thompson
wrote:
So, Owen, you meet a beautiful woman at a cocktail party. She seems
intelligent, not a person to be fobbed off,
Owen Densmore wrote at 04/17/2013 01:53 PM:
> Er,, of course there are many, right? With two finite sets of size N there
> are N! 1-1, onto unique mappings, I believe.
Heh, there are way more than that! What I meant was that there exist
more than 1 morphism that results in the same snapshot of t
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Nicholas Thompson <
nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> So, Owen, you meet a beautiful woman at a cocktail party. She seems
> intelligent, not a person to be fobbed off, but has no experience with
> either Maths or Computer Science. She looks deep into y
Er,, of course there are many, right? With two finite sets of size N there
are N! 1-1, onto unique mappings, I believe.
But relax. I went off the deep end with examples of things like
decidability.
All I'm curious about is whether or not it is possible to somehow make
philosophy, or simply inte
Well said, Steve! Mostly, what's kept me from commenting on the
"isomorphism" thread is ... well, the word "isomorphism". [grin]
I spend _all_ my time... seriously ... arguing against the "Grand
Unified Model" (GUM). For some reason, everyone seems so certain,
convicted, that there exists the O
On a tangential note, I was told in 1961 of a project to prove (on a computer)
the theorems in Principia Mathematica. It went well through the first section,
and then they hit the brick wall when they encountered statements like "there
exists" and "for every". When dealing with infinite sets, th
: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Isomorphism between computation and philosophy
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Nicholas Thompson
wrote:
Translatability has been a crucial issue in modern analytical philosophy.
Translation implies that you and I hav
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Nicholas Thompson <
nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Translatability has been a crucial issue in modern analytical philosophy.
> Translation implies that you and I have the same piano and that, while we
> may call the keys by different names, there is a
offee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Isomorphism between computation and philosophy
Doug -
Thanks for weighing in here... as an aside, I skimmed "Garden World" and
found it compelling... I hope others here will take the time!
On the thread topic, it would be rather "convenient" i
Doug -
Thanks for weighing in here... as an aside, I skimmed "Garden World" and
found it compelling... I hope others here will take the time!
On the thread topic, it would be rather "convenient" in many ways if
there were such an isomorphism as Owen seeks (postulates), but I find it
to refle
between computation and philosophy
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Nicholas Thompson
wrote:
I don't think I said that math couldn't be mapped onto things. I only said
that such mappings are not essential to math and, further, that when such
mappings occur, the door is opened for confusi
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I don’t think I said that math couldn’t be mapped onto things. I only
> said that such mappings are not essential to math and, further, that when
> such mappings occur, the door is opened for confusion that
t you said.
N
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 5:12 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Isomorphism between computation and philosophy
No, I think we can make a ma
Arrow's impossibility theorem is provable, basically social choice is
impossible given several fairly sound requirements: 3 or more things to
choose between and transitivity of choice.
C isn't a proof, agreed. Although its acceptance is well seen by
observation. And physics hasn't theorems in th
h.com] *On Behalf Of *Owen
> Densmore
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 16, 2013 3:50 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Isomorphism between computation and philosophy
>
> ** **
>
> One has to be careful with ne
Actually, Godel said "that the axioms [have to]->[can't] be very carefully
chosen." The theorem says that any mathematical system that contains the
integers cannot be both complete and self-consistent. It is unique in the list
of 'impossibility' theorems in that it has a mathematical proof. The
h.com] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 3:50 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Isomorphism between computation and philosophy
>
> One has to be careful with nearly all the "impossibility" t
I should correct myself. The mapping is not necessarily an isomorphism.
--Barry
On Apr 16, 2013, at 3:39 PM, Barry MacKichan
wrote:
> Curious. Isn't the proof of Godel's theorem a special case of this?
>
> As I understand it, the proof is this:
>
> Consider the statement: This theorem is no
Nick
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 3:50 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Isomorphism between computation and philosophy
One has to be careful with nearly all the &quo
One has to be careful with nearly all the "impossibility" theorems: Arrow's
voting, the speed of light, Godel, Heisenberg, decidability, NoFreeLunch,
... and so on.
To tell the truth, Godel .. it seems to me .. says to the
practicing mathematician that the axioms have to be very carefully chosen.
Curious. Isn't the proof of Godel's theorem a special case of this?
As I understand it, the proof is this:
Consider the statement: This theorem is not provable. If it is false, the
theorem is provable. Since 'provable' implies true, this is a contradiction.
Therefore the theorem is true, which
Nick:
> It's probably a good thing that I retired before I got wise.
I think I hear the sound of the Arrow of Causality twanging in the bullseye.
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's Col
your word,
undecideable. Can you guess at what those words might be?
Nick
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 10:26 AM
To: Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Isomorphism between computation and philosophy
On S
Philosophy is very broad and includes many things like ethics and anesthetics.
A good test case would be not logic, but poetry.
Blessings,
Doug
http://dougcarmichael.com
http://gardenworldpolitics.com
On Apr 16, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Nichola
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Can anybody translate this for a non programmer person?
>
>
>
Nick's question brings up a project I'd love to see: an attempt at an
isomorphism between computation and philosophy. (An isomorphism is a 1 to
1
51 matches
Mail list logo
