Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> The physical device is far more complex than the algorithm, > astronomically more complex, so you tell me which is a simplified > approximation of which. > > The physical device is no more relevant to the algorithm than any other > universal system. Yes, an algorithm is a simplified approximation of the way a real computer works, and in general good simplified approximations work with a large number of real world situations. > > You can implement the factorial in fortran, and you can implement > fortran in lisp, and you can implement lisp Correct again, but whatever language you implement your algorithm in it must be implemented in matter that obeys the laws of physics because you can't make a calculation with software alone. > > The level of complexity is not relevant here. It's very relevant if you want to know what is a simplified approximation of what. And we both agree that a electronic computer is vastly more complex than it's logical schematic, so why can we make a working model of the complex thing but not make a working model of the simple thing when usually it's easier to make a simple thing than a complex thing? The only answer that comes to mind is that particular simplified approximation is just too simplified and just too approximate to actually do anything. That simplification must be missing something important, matter that obeys the laws of physics. John K Clark John K Clark > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
