On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 10:26:02AM -0600, Levi Pearson wrote: > Paul Seamons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Computer scientists are actually pretty picky about the words they use > to describe the difficulty of problems. You will never find a non-CS > person, or anyone else, solving an problem deemed impossible by CS > theory, because such problems are not computable. If it looks like > they did, then they only thought they solved the problem. They either > solved something else, or the solutions are wrong. > > Your argument seems to me equivalent to saying that lack of training > in physics gives you a better shot at designing physically impossible > devices. Despite your words, no one is going to successfully build a > perpetual motion machine, because such things are impossible. Right. Now go find a short story by Issac Asimov titled "Not Final". This reminds me of something Sir Arthur C. Clarke observed: that when a distingushed scientist telly you something is possible he is almost certainly correct. But when he tells you something is impossible, he is almost certainly wrong. -- Charles Curley /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign Looking for fine software \ / Respect for open standards and/or writing? X No HTML/RTF in email http://www.charlescurley.com / \ No M$ Word docs in email Key fingerprint = CE5C 6645 A45A 64E4 94C0 809C FFF6 4C48 4ECD DFDB
pgpSqY6FmMWX1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
