> > > Here's my simple proof: algebra, or any other formal language for that > matter, is expressible in natural language, if inefficiently. > > Words like quantity, sum, multiple, equals, and so on, are capable of > conveying the same meaning that the sentence "x*3 = y" conveys. The rules > for manipulating equations are likewise expressible in natural language. > > Thus it is possible in principle to do algebra without learning the > mathematical symbols. Much more difficult for human minds perhaps, but > possible in principle. Thus, learning mathematical formalism via translation > from natural language concepts is possible (which is how we do it, after > all). Therefore, an intelligence that can learn natural language can learn > to do math.
OK, but I didn't think we were talking about what is "possible in principle" but may be unrealizable in practice... It's possible in principle to create a supercomputer via training pigeons to peck in appropriate patterns, in response to the patterns that they notice other pigeons peck. My friends in Perth and I designed such a machine once and called it the PC or Pigeon Computer. I wish I'd retained the drawings and schematics! We considered launching a company to sell them, IBM or International Bird Machines ... but failed to convince any VC's (even in the Internet bubble!!) and gave up... ben g ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
