> I'd rather not be painted into a logical corner thank you.
Painting yourself into the corner is what inspires you to invent
walking on the wall, or whatever else is required to step outside the
box.
> I guess I'm not framiliar with your definition for 'quine', or
> in how it is being used.
Probably approximately the same one as yours, but intepreted in a
context that gets all twisted up by the perscribed psychoactives du
jour. Such is life.
More expressely, much of what I see "us" doing is producing
systems that, at a very minimum, reproduce themselves, perhaps with
the assistance of human operators.
As Marc alludes to, there's a huge amount additional value in the
precise *why*; reproduction isn't enough. Why reproduction isn't
enough should be obvious enough; most of our overall time goes into
producing the knowledge of why, and not as much into the reproduction
infrastructure; that's supposedly getting easier.
> I think the most important thing is to not get caught in the
> paradoxical logic. For in most cases the propertie of being a quine
> is not the property we are looking for in the systems we build.
"Paradoxical logic" has a point. Anything that you can say that
appears to be a forall property is notable. forall properties are
often part of how you break down seemingly intractible computation
problems into something that cracks in some circumstances, giving you
solutions to hard problems.
_______________________________________________
lssconf-discuss mailing list
lssconf-discuss@inf.ed.ac.uk
http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/lssconf-discuss
