Message from discussion LISP - 2 exponent 0 = 1
From: ilias <at_n...@pontos.net>
Subject: Re: LISP - 2 exponent 0 = 1
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 19:05:27 +0300
Organization: An OTEnet S.A. customer
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
X-Trace: usenet.otenet.gr 1032796616 1449 184.108.40.206 (23 Sep 2002 15:56:56 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 15:56:56 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826
X-Accept-Language: el, en-us, en
Marco Antoniotti wrote:
> Ok, one last time. I promise. I just cannot resist.
> ilias <at_n...@pontos.net> writes:
> ... Some discussion on `Turing Test' elided ...
>>>>>>>A simple Google search will fill in the details.
>>>>>>>Since it has been suggested up here that you are actually an A.I.,
>>>>>>>fact that you show ignorance of the Turing Test could be seen as a
>>>>>>>ruse by your programmer(s) to fool the denizens of C.L.L. into
>>>>>>>thinking that you are actually human.
>>>>>>sounds like 'paranoia'.
>>>>>Do you mean that you are paranoic or that I am paranoic.
>>>>"could be seen" => paranoia.
>>>I am sorry, I do not understand this comment.
>>I said : "sounds like 'paranoia'"
>>you asked: "Do you mean that you are paranoic or that I am paranoic"
>>I quoted : ("could be seen"), the part of the text to which the term
> Yes, but I asked you whether you think if you or I are paranoic. Am I?
extract the essence.
>>>>>Are we like Eliza and Parry?
>>>True. But a little bit of humor has never hurt anybody. (Has it?)
>>i try to assimilate 'Turing Test'.
> Evidently you have not read "The Name of the Rose" by Umberto Eco.
> Have you?
> ... More stuff elided ...
>>>>>>What is 'Turing-Complete'?
>>>>>Essentially, a programming language L is Turing Complete if there
>>>>>exists an algorithm transforming a program in L into the code for a
>>>>what is a 'Turing machine'?
>>>A good reference id "J. E. Hopcroft and J. D. Ullman, Introduction to
>>>Automata Theory, Languages and Computation, Addison-Wesley, 1979".
>>>It is just a book, but some books are good.
>>you cannot explain 'Turing-machine'.
>I can, the explanation is just too long to fit in this Usenet
>posting. But, unlike Fermat, I have a constructive proof on my desk
>that I can. It is just a book.
>>>>>>I cannot extract a meaning, based on the information 'Turing-Test' you
>>>>>>just gave me.
>>>>>I can only point the direction. Books and Google are ther for this
>>>>you don't pass my 'Turing Test'.
>>>Then you maintain that I am a machine. How do you purport to go ahead
>>>and prove to others up here that I am a machine?
>>i don't maintain that you are a machine.
>>i've placed "Turing Test" between ''.
>>My "Turing Test" - 'The didactic capabilities of the Test Target'
>If it is 'Turing Test' how can it be yours?
you try to 'fuck' me.
>>>>>reason. Everybody has time constraints which are best spent doing
>>>>>real work instead of quibbling on minutiae of the Common Lisp
>>>It depends. It may be irrelevant for you.
>>>But suppose it wasn't?
>>>What would you do differently if you found the remark relevant?
>>follow-up remarks irrelevant.
> Irrelevant to you. Possibly not to others. Getting touchy?
>>>>>My version of the Turing test would ask to discriminate between
>>>>>relevant and irrelevant issue in the line of questions and answers.
>>>>>And note that I would be the judge. :)
>>>>thus the quality of your test depends on the quality of your judge.
>>>Well, I trust my judgement, hence my test is going to be pretty good.
>>>>sounds not good.
>>>That is your problem. Remember: I am the judge, not you.
>>your test is already running.
>>and i've passed.
>Maybe. I'll leave you with the doubt. Do you ever doubt your lines
>>>>Turing Test: comparing A.I. against H.I. (Human Intelligence), judged
>>>>by human intelligence.
>>>>I think i don't like the 'Turing-Test'.
>>>Why don't you like it?
>>fact's already given. reasons:
>>- comaring A.I. against H.I.
>>- judged by H.I.
>>construct 'Turing Test': provisional rejected.
>>>In some ways it is a playful game put forth by
>>>one of the great minds of our century to address a deep question.
>If you cannot judge,
> why are you rejecting it on the basis of just two