On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Steve Richfield <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > If you can figure out every single detail, and if you live long enough to > do so, then you will succeed. However, there are several imperfect > quasi-proofs that this will be VERY difficult. > a) not every detail needs to be figured out, as there may be other programmers helping. b) am doing longevity diet calorie-restriction on optimal-nutrition c) proofs of difficulty are often quite silly for instance, context-sensitive grammars are PSPACE-complete difficulty, yet I manged to code at least 3 in the last decade, and the scanner parser is really one of the easier parts of making a compiler. I use GDB debugger for my asm code. Another example of something that was proven by Americans to be impossible is high speed torpedo's, yet in soviet-union they had them for decades before the collapse, could go hundreds of kilometers an hour by making a bubble of air in which it propelled itself. Even NP-complete problems can be solved, with random numbers. So really when someone says or even proves something to be difficult, *shrugs* who cares? it's irrelevant, it's still doable, everything is possible. I do have to agree, that these labels do deter many people, and is why we see so few context-sensitive parsers, because few have even bothered trying, since they were so scared of PSPACE. I like hard things, like rocks, they are stable. ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
