Mike, How many times does it take to get this idea across to you. You are confusing a primitive definition of algorithm - which might be currently acceptable to many people - as a fundamental notion of the characterization of a computer program. Jim
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > *P.P.P.S. Just to ram this home -* > ** > *UNLESS you do something like I’ve suggested, (and I know none of you > have) -* > ** > *a) tackle a proper creative problem (and what better than > geometrical/math ones for you?) -* > ** > *(you don’t have to come anywhere near solving it, just have a go at it), > and then* > ** > *b) try and algorithmise/systematise your thinking -* > ** > *unless you do that, you will NEVER understand AGI.* > ** > *If you do, note what is the “set of elements”/options to be thought > about here? (there never is one).* > ** > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- 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
