On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Vladimir Nesov wrote: > > On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Vladimir Nesov wrote: > >>> Richard, > >>> > >>> It's a question of notation. Yes, you can sometimes formulate > >>> difficult problems succinctly. GoL is just another formalism in which > >>> it's possible. What does it have to do with anything? > >> It has to do with the argument in my paper. > > > > Strictly speaking, it doesn't answer that question. > > > >> Can there ever be a scientific theory that > >> predicts all the "interesting creatures" given only the rules? > > > > Which is equivalent to asking "can there be a feasible solution to > > that immensely difficult, but succinctly formulated problem?" In > > general, no. But you can solve it on 'good enough' level by > > experimenting with simulation. Reasonable. Yet it's strange to frame > > it as something that is usually never done. > > > > Again, I have to say that this thread is about the specific use that I > make, in my paper, of the Game of Life cellular automaton. > > So, if you take a look at that question of mine that you quote above > "Can there ever be a scientific theory that predicts all the > "interesting creatures" given only the rules?" .... when you respond > with the words "... no, but ..." everything that comes after the word > "no" has no relevance in the context of my paper.
So, what does it exemplify exactly? That some problems can't be solved? It's common knowledge too. If you can't solve the problem, all you can do is to modify it so that resulting problem can be solved, which is what 'good enough solution' refers to. -- Vladimir Nesov mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=50336687-da8563
