--- Stan Nilsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not understanding why an *explanation* would be ambiguous? If I > have a process / function that consistently transforms x into y, then > doesn't the process serve as a non-ambiguous explanation of how y came > into being? (presuming this is the thing to be explained.)
A formal explanation of a program P would be a equivalent program Q, such that P(x) = Q(x) for all x. Although it is not possible to prove equivalence in general, it is sometimes possible to prove nonequivalence by finding x such that P(x) != Q(x), i.e. Q fails to predict what P will output given x. Prediction can be used as a test of understanding lots of things. For example, if I wanted to test whether you understand Newton's law of gravity, I would ask you to predict how long it will take an object of a certain mass to fall from a certain height. If I wanted to test whether you understand French, I could give you a few lines of text in French and ask you to predict what the next word will be. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
