> > Obviously you didn’t get my point about the English at all.
I'm pretty sure I did, actually. Maybe you missed mine. I extensively used Mathematical formulas in my 2 x third year > Econometrics courses at University but not many people would call > Economics, Math. Nor would I, anymore than I would call CS math. If you don’t understand my argument by now, I am sure any more examples by > me won’t let you see the light. I don't need more examples, because I understand what you're saying and agree with you, for the most part. > Mathematics in some ways is like a language that describes things that > belong to other areas of study. Computer Science is one of those areas. > Some Math has been used to describe some things in CS but that doesn’t mean > that CS is a branch of Mathematics. This specifically is what I was agreeing with, in its entirety. I have given some examples already that show that CS has many techniques, > organizations and priorities that are not Math. I must have missed these. If you wish to win this argument, then you must show why my points are > incorrect. It is not legitimate to just ignore my points. It wasn't an argument from my perspective, and I didn't ignore your points. I added a point of my own. Mathematical constructs are NOT the basis for what we do! This is the part I disagree with. Variables, functions, comparisons, computational complexity, stacks, memory, byte code, loops, iteration, control flow, data structures, data types... These are all mathematical by nature, and the list goes on. Even many of their names provide clues to this. Computers are designed based on the Turing machine, which is also a mathematical construct. I would consider these things together to be the basis of what we do. Basis != totality, of course. When I decide to write a particular function, method, or class to do a certain thing, my decision is non-mathematical, and the act requires non-mathematical expertise, but the end result is always something that can be described using a mathematical construct, if necessary. This doesn't make me a mathematician, nor does it make a mathematician a programmer. There are rules to arguments. Just stating conclusions is not an > argument. Intelligent people have a duty to each other to debate issues > using facts (points that are not in dispute) and logic and if you want to > argue with me, you actually do need to follow the rules. If normal > argument rules aren’t followed in normal or average discourse, that doesn’t > mean that is acceptable between intelligent people. > PS This is supposed to be a list of people who exchange ideas about > creating Artificial General Intelligence, how can intelligence be created > when the simple rules of intelligent debate aren’t followed Sorry, I'm not going to try to dump every shred of evidence or support I have into a single email. No one would read it, and it wouldn't be worth the effort. I made points, you disagreed with them. I've provided additional support for my points as a consequence, and attempted to clarify in the process, and this exchange can be repeated. That's the normal flow of conversation, AFAIK. If you disagree with what I've said, you're welcome to support your own points, as well. But just to be clear, I'm not trying to negate the points you've already made, I'm trying to refine them. On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:19 AM, David Clark <[email protected]>wrote: > Obviously you didn’t get my point about the English at all. I extensively > used Mathematical formulas in my 2 x third year Econometrics courses at > University but not many people would call Economics, Math. If you don’t > understand my argument by now, I am sure any more examples by me won’t let > you see the light. Mathematics in some ways is like a language that > describes things that belong to other areas of study. Computer Science is > one of those areas. Some Math has been used to describe some things in CS > but that doesn’t mean that CS is a branch of Mathematics. I have given > some examples already that show that CS has many techniques, organizations > and priorities that are not Math. If you wish to win this argument, then > you must show why my points are incorrect. It is not legitimate to just > ignore my points.**** > > ** ** > > Mathematical constructs are NOT the basis for what we do! You state this > as a conclusion, as if you need no arguments to back it up. Wrong. If I > can show there is at least 1 non Math construct in CS, then your statement > is false. I have already provided some and I know of a huge number of > constructs that are CS but not Math.**** > > ** ** > > There are rules to arguments. Just stating conclusions is not an > argument. Intelligent people have a duty to each other to debate issues > using facts (points that are not in dispute) and logic and if you want to > argue with me, you actually do need to follow the rules. If normal > argument rules aren’t followed in normal or average discourse, that doesn’t > mean that is acceptable between intelligent people.**** > > ** ** > > David Clark**** > > ** ** > > PS This is supposed to be a list of people who exchange ideas about > creating Artificial General Intelligence, how can intelligence be created > when the simple rules of intelligent debate aren’t followed?**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Aaron Hosford [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* January-08-13 12:06 AM > > *To:* AGI > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Why Logic & Maths Have Sweet FA to do with Real > world reasoning**** > > ** ** > > I challenge you to describe something in a foreign language that can’t be > formulated in English? If necessary, I will just incorporate whatever > foreign word you say into English to make sure I win! Obviously every > language is English, right?**** > > ** ** > > I'm glad you see my point. If you want to say such-and-such technical > subject isn't mathematical, sorry, the game is rigged. The word > "mathematics" is inherently inclusive of such things by definition.**** > > ** ** > > So who should design projects in CS, Mathematicians or Computer > Scientists? Should the point of view used to define a program depend on CS > concerns like efficiency, the real world etc or should it depend on > theoretically perfect Mathematical constructs?**** > > ** ** > > Definitely Computer Scientists should write code, not Mathematicians. > (I've seen some awful examples firsthand, unfortunately.) Just because we > use their tools doesn't mean they know the subject material. The > theoretically perfect mathematical constructs are the basis for what we do, > but practical experience is necessary for anyone to succeed at anything > nontrivial, and CS is certainly nontrivial.**** > > ** ** > > I just don’t think we get our due respect!**** > > ** ** > > I'm not arguing here! But that doesn't negate the fact that computation is > inherently mathematical, either.**** > > **** > > ** ** > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-2da819ff> | > 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-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
