Kory Heath wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2008, at 5:26 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>> Kory Heath wrote:
>>> On Nov 23, 2008, at 11:24 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>>> Kory Heath wrote:
>>>>> Or maybe I'm still misdiagnosing the problem. Is anyone arguing  
>>>>> that,
>>>>> when you play back the lookup table like a movie, this counts as
>>>>> performing all of the Conway's Life computations a second time?
>>>> Why shouldn't it?
>>> Please see my recent response to Bruno. If we perform a complex
>>> computation which results in placing the integer "5" into some memory
>>> variable, and then later we copy the contents of that memory variable
>>> to some other location in memory, in what sense are we re-performing
>>> the original complex computation?
>> That's different since, ex hypothesi, the original calculation was  
>> complex.  So
>> we can say just putting the answer, 5, in a register is not  
>> repeating the
>> calculation based on some complexity measure of the process.
> But the Conway's Life calculations are "complex" in the sense that I  
> meant the term. If we have a grid of cells filled with a pattern of  
> bits, and we point at one particular cell and ask, "If we iterate the  
> Conway's Life rule on this grid a trillion times, will this bit be on  
> or off?", we have to perform a bunch of computations to answer the  
> question. If we store the results of those computations, and then  
> later someone points at that same cell and asks the same question, and  
> I just look up the answer, I don't see how we can say that that act of  
> looking up the answer counts as re-performing the original  
> computation. Are you arguing that it does?
> -- Kory
No, I'm saying it doesn't. 


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to