Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Information > Can a computer work anything out?

Reply
Thread Tools

Can a computer work anything out?

 
 
Zinnic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-19-2009
On Jul 18, 8:07*pm, John Jones <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> LudovicoVan wrote:
> > On 16 July, 00:50, LudovicoVan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> On 15 July, 19:23, John Jones <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >>> Each step in a program, whether it is a pattern or not, is a stop. All
> >>> stops are a last stop. So, there are no computer/program parameters that
> >>> can define a "last stop" as a "halt" or "termination".
> >> On the contrary, the fact there there are such parameters allowes the
> >> whole thing to "work".

>
> > In fact, I find interesting that in the formal description of a Turing
> > machine, the STOP is a (sort of?) meta-command. Maybe someone could
> > elaborate on this: the status of the STOP instruction w.r.t. the
> > specification of a Turing machine?

>
> > -LV

>
> Quite so. That was what I was arguing. If all steps are stops, and all
> stops are "last", then how can there be a "last stop"- Hide quoted text -


More to the point. How can there be more than one step? To start is to
stop? Gee! 'if' has a lot to answer for!
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Marshall
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-19-2009
On Jul 18, 8:18*pm, John Jones <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> > On Jul 18, 6:07 pm, John Jones <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> Quite so. That was what I was arguing. If all steps are stops, and all
> >> stops are "last", then how can there be a "last stop"

>
> > "If all X have property Y then how can there be an X with property Y?"

>
> > That's awesome.

>
> Are you getting this?


I'm getting the same thing I always have with you: that you
have no tiniest understanding of either logic nor whatever
technical issue it tickles your fancy to propound upon at the
moment. And that you know that, and prefer it that way.

That tells me everything I need to know about your posts.
They are, like the disclaimers on the psychic readings
say, "for entertainment purposes only."


Marshall
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ZerkonXXXX
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-20-2009
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:56:15 -0700, Sargon wrote:

> On Jul 16, 9:50*am, ZerkonXXXX <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:23:17 +0100, John Jones wrote:

>
>> Error! Valid conclusion but erroneous (self-contradicting) reasoning.
>> By your own (and my) conclusion Computers do not 'make'.

>
> How can a valid conclusion be reached by erroneous reasoning? A valid
> conclusion, by definition, has been arrived at with correct reasoning,
> that's the meaning of valid. The premises may be false, but the
> reasoning is valid.


[GIVEN: It is raining outside]

Conclusion: It is raining outside. Reason: because someone in the world
has sinned and Baby Jesus is crying.

>
>> The answer might be reduced by this question: Does purposeful act
>> require intent.

>
> Give an example of an intentional
> act that is not a purposeful act, or a purposeful act which is not an
> intentional act.


The topic is the computer that 'makes' things or 'calculates' both serve
a purpose. My question addressed assigning the ability 'to make' without
an intention 'to make' being possible. So without intention the computer
can does not 'make' or 'calculate' even though it serves that purpose.

So your question does not fit this exactly or my question was not well
put but I'll have a go anyway because they are fun. However, I have to
revert to the premise of my question, Purposeful act being and act or
condition of outcome. Intention being the means to this outcome.

An intentional act is one in which purpose is a potential and so not yet
realized. If purpose is not realized though the intention of action, the
action is not purposeful.

A purposeful act is purpose realized, the nature of the intention then is
irrelevant.

>> Can a computer 'make' (see, hear, tell, listen, compute) while void of
>> the intention to 'make' (etc)?
>>
>> If no intent but still purposeful act then they are only being used
>> with intent for a purpose. Like a hammer. Hammers, of course, 'make'
>> noise and 'hit' nails but this is only a way of speaking about how a
>> person is using the hammer, not the hammer itself.

>
> I do not understand this example.Hammers have a purpose, but do not
> "act" with purpose or intention. This is an interesting question. Are
> the two words/concepts synonymous?


The attempt here is to force the purpose seen in outcome away from the
instrument used to achieve outcome. So hammers do not in themselves
'have' a purpose, they are made for a purpose which the human user 'has'.
The purpose of the hammer is in fact the purpose of the user. Even a
hammer which is designed for the specific purpose of hitting nails can
never be used this way but used to break rock, the hammer now 'having'
another purpose.

 
Reply With Quote
 
John Jones
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2009
Zinnic wrote:
> On Jul 18, 8:07 pm, John Jones <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> LudovicoVan wrote:
>>> On 16 July, 00:50, LudovicoVan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> On 15 July, 19:23, John Jones <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> Each step in a program, whether it is a pattern or not, is a stop. All
>>>>> stops are a last stop. So, there are no computer/program parameters that
>>>>> can define a "last stop" as a "halt" or "termination".
>>>> On the contrary, the fact there there are such parameters allowes the
>>>> whole thing to "work".
>>> In fact, I find interesting that in the formal description of a Turing
>>> machine, the STOP is a (sort of?) meta-command. Maybe someone could
>>> elaborate on this: the status of the STOP instruction w.r.t. the
>>> specification of a Turing machine?
>>> -LV

>> Quite so. That was what I was arguing. If all steps are stops, and all
>> stops are "last", then how can there be a "last stop"- Hide quoted text -

>
> More to the point. How can there be more than one step? To start is to
> stop? Gee! 'if' has a lot to answer for!


Then follow it through. I didn't because I couldn't be asked.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Jones
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2009
Marshall wrote:
> On Jul 16, 6:25 am, John Stafford <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Perhaps the spaces between JJ's words have significance in that he
>> imagines closure, a fill-in-the-gaps-with-meaning thing - something like
>> the space between cartoon panels.

>
> I dispute the claim that JJ employs words. A sequence
> of letters isn't a word; a set of flowers isn't a bouquet.
> These forms do not arise as a summation of the individual
> properties of the set. I am certain he himself would agree.
>
>
> Marshall


quite right.
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Anthony Buckland" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I'm a latecomer to this exchange, but please would someone
> explain what "work anything out" regarding a computer means,
> rigorously, that is.


What makes you think anyone here actually knows the answer to this?

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)> ,
Robert Baer <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > "Anthony Buckland" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm a latecomer to this exchange, but please would someone
> >> explain what "work anything out" regarding a computer means,
> >> rigorously, that is.

> >
> > What makes you think anyone here actually knows the answer to this?
> >

> It cannot clean a kitchen sink or divide by three exactly or create
> truly random numbers.


Truly random numbers, now that is an interesting concept. Depending on
what quite this means, perhaps something justly called a computer could
do this. Sure, it would not be on the basis of some one simple or even
one complex set algorithm in the average cpu but perhaps it could have a
component that emitted things that it could somehow take in as input,
something that a Geiger counter would start clicking at when held close
to...

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Anthony Buckland" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Here's an excerpt from Wolfram MathWorld's relevant article:


> A random number is a number chosen as if by chance


No fault of yours, Anthony, but in this atrocious bit of prose and
"explanation" you quote, the first thing that someone sensible would
avoid is throwing in the phrase "as if by chance" in explaining random
numbers at this stage!

> from some
> specified distribution such that selection of a large set of these
> numbers reproduces the underlying distribution.


And this *reproduction* is relevant to quite what?

> Almost always,
> such numbers are also required to be independent, so that there
> are no correlations between successive numbers.


No correlations eh? There are always *correlations*. This is the worst
bit of explanation of the idea of a random number that I have ever seen.
It is as if the writer has not a single clue that he is *not helping*
understanding something many of us already understand well enough.

He would have done better to simply have shut up. If you want a better
explanation, you should ask someone like me or Patricia Aldoraz who
might know something about the matter.

> Computer-generated random numbers are sometimes called
> pseudorandom numbers, while the term "random" is reserved
> for the output of unpredictable physical processes. When used
> without qualification, the word "random" usually means
> "random with a uniform distribution."
>


--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Davej
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2009
On Jul 22, 8:18*pm, "Anthony Buckland"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> *I'm a latecomer to this exchange, but please would someone
> explain what "work anything out" regarding a computer means,
> rigorously, that is.


Good question. I am amazed that such a vague, meaningless, and idiotic
question can draw so many responses.
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)> ,
Robert Baer <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > "Anthony Buckland" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> Here's an excerpt from Wolfram MathWorld's relevant article:

> >
> >> A random number is a number chosen as if by chance

> >
> > No fault of yours, Anthony, but in this atrocious bit of prose and
> > "explanation" you quote, the first thing that someone sensible would
> > avoid is throwing in the phrase "as if by chance" in explaining random
> > numbers at this stage!
> >
> >> from some
> >> specified distribution such that selection of a large set of these
> >> numbers reproduces the underlying distribution.

> >
> > And this *reproduction* is relevant to quite what?
> >
> >> Almost always,
> >> such numbers are also required to be independent, so that there
> >> are no correlations between successive numbers.

> >
> > No correlations eh? There are always *correlations*. This is the worst
> > bit of explanation of the idea of a random number that I have ever seen.
> > It is as if the writer has not a single clue that he is *not helping*
> > understanding something many of us already understand well enough.
> >
> > He would have done better to simply have shut up. If you want a better
> > explanation, you should ask someone like me or Patricia Aldoraz who
> > might know something about the matter.
> >

....
> >

> Then if you are so smart, 'splain it...


Gulp!

How about .... er ... how about ... a random number is a number that
pops up before us without us having a clue as to how it was generated.

oup.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Branch can't get to internet, can't ping anything but ethernet at main site. td Cisco 9 04-24-2006 03:29 PM
Can't connect to local machine with anything except IE Other browsers can't connect without password Otis Mukinfus ASP .Net 3 07-08-2005 03:54 AM
Computer wont boot up from anything Saddles Computer Support 14 05-01-2005 02:34 PM
Re: Corrupted CD data - if Isobuster can't recover it, is there anything that can? dadiOH Computer Support 0 10-23-2004 05:32 PM
Cannot get display on computer to display anything Powerbook Computer Support 5 02-26-2004 12:30 AM



Advertisments