Its starting to get lonely here!
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > !Owen - > > I can't wait for Marilyn Monroe (with a Groucho Marx moustache and cigar > and Nick Thompson eyebrows) to break into "Happy Birthday Mr. Computer > Guy!, Happy Birthday to you.... " > > I have to say (Owen) that this doesn't even come close to any reality I > live in: > > "The general problem os software verification is not solvable by > computer". (sic) > > This would never work at any cocktail party I've been to... I admit it > might be the simplest way of saying it that has a chance of being explained > in *one more* unpacking, but is more likely to just end the conversation > (young lady with Nick's eyebrows cocks her head and says "I think I hear my > stock broker calling!" as she walks off). So maybe your approach to > progressive disclosure is more "recursive" than "iterative". If her "Big > Bold Naivete" comes with her "Nick Thompson eyebrows", she might stick > around for another couple of rounds of unpacking. Like "what in heaven's > name does 'software verification' have to do with anything, and why would I > *care* if you can do it with a computer or not?". > > In facte I would claim that *almost literally* anyone who understands your > postulation: > > "The general problem os software verification is not solvable by > computer". > > agrees with it, and anyone who doesn't probably has *virtually* no clue > what you are talking about? > > I admit that Nick (in Marilyn drag) has set you up a little by using words > like HALTING, suggesting the (s)he has a more familiar vocabulary/lexicon > than in fact (s)he probably does. I suppose anyone who knows the technical > definition of "halting" probably already understands the phrase: > > "The general problem os software verification is not solvable by > computer". > > Beyond this, I don't understand why someone (Owen?) would understand this > phrase: > > "The general problem os software verification is not solvable by > computer". (sic) > > yet would imagine that the rigorous methods of computer science would put > Philosophical questions to bed. I'd suggest that *most* of Philosophy has > been hand-verifying programs written in logic, classifying them, and > creating an (ever growing?) bin of "quite possibly undecidable" (but > non-trivial and interesting) statements. I sense that you (Owen) don't > agree/believe that this ever-growing bin is a *result* of the application > of very formal methods (although driven by intuition and executed in > psuedo-natural language) rather than *in spite of* the same? > > > - Steve > > “But Mr. Densmore: what is the problem of software verification.”**** > > ** ** > > I would bat my eyes, by my eyebrows would get in the way. **** > > ** ** > > Nick **** > > ** ** > > *From:* Friam [mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>] > *On Behalf Of *Owen Densmore > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:03 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Cc:* Frank Wimberly > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Isomorphism between computation and philosophy**** > > ** ** > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Nicholas Thompson < > [email protected]> wrote:**** > > **** > > <snip>**** > > ** ** > > So, Owen, you meet a beautiful woman at a cocktail party. She seems > intelligent, not a person to be fobbed off, but has no experience with > either Maths or Computer Science. She looks deep into your eyes, and asks > “And what, Mr. Densmore, is the halting problem?” You find yourself torn > between two impulses. One is to use the language that would give you > credibility in the world of your mentors and colleagues. But you realize > that that language is going to be of absolutely no use to her, however ever > much it might make you feel authoritative to use it. She expects an > answer. Yet you hesitate. What language do you use? **** > > ** ** > > Your basic English.**** > > You would start, would you not, with the idea of a “problem.” A problem > is some sort of difficulty that needs to be surmounted. There is a goal > and something that thwarts that goal. What are these elements in the > halting PROBLEM? And why is HALTING a problem? **** > > ** ** > > Well, I do get asked a lot about computation and have found a "progressive > disclosure" approach best. I'd start by saying exactly what Michael > Sipser, Intro to Theory of Computation, does: **** > > ** ** > > "The general problem os software verification is not solvable by > computer". **** > > ** ** > > Usually that is clear enough but if more is needed, we progressively > discuss what software is and how it is modeled in computer theory. Believe > it or not, I've had this sort of thing lead to Finite State Automata, first > as circles and arrows but then to the formal 5-tuple. And this was not a > mathematically sophisticated person.**** > > ** ** > > -- Owen**** > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
