Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion Matheology § 095
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Graham Cooper  
View profile  
 More options Aug 1 2012, 6:25 pm
Newsgroups: sci.logic, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy
From: Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:25:31 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Aug 1 2012 6:25 pm
Subject: Re: Matheology § 095
On Jul 31, 1:33 am, FredJeffries <fredjeffr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 23, 12:39 pm, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Are you saying that mathematicians nowadays will turn the blind eye
> > for anyone who have ideas like Dooyeweerdian? Why is that? I don't
> > think this is the case, i.e. I don't think they object to merely
> > having those ideas, I don't know however, but I think what
> > mathematicians want is non trivial new results, if Dooyeweerdian's
> > intuitions can be stated clearly on informal level as to admit
> > faithful formalization of them with a consistent formal system and if
> > that formal system showed success in interpreting ordinary mathematics
> > as well as opening the doors for further mathematical investigation,

> Ah, that's where it all breaks down. As much sympathy as I have for
> a Dooyeweerd/Strauss non-reductionistic system or any other non-
> standard
> foundation (or non-foundation), I have yet to come across any that
> actually solve a mathematical problem.

> Few mathematicians care about foundational matters. They just want
> to do their jobs. Unless you show them something with impact, like

Innovation peters out, a new smart phone button every few years is all
that's left.

All that remains now is a colossal set of hard problems... most of
which will fall under the one hammer, automated semantics.

1971
Person: HAD YOU TOUCHED ANY PYRAMID BEFORE YOU PUT THE GREEN ONE ON
THE LITTLE CUBE?
Computer: YES, THE GREEN ONE.

Person: WHEN DID YOU PICK IT UP?
Computer: WHILE I WAS STACKING UP THE RED CUBE, A LARGE RED BLOCK AND
A LARGE GREEN CUBE.

Person: WHY?
Computer: TO GET RID OF IT.

Person: WHY DID YOU DO THAT?
Computer: TO CLEAN OFF THE RED CUBE.

Person: WHY DID YOU CLEAR OFF THAT CUBE?
Computer: TO PUT IT ON A LARGE GREEN CUBE.

Person: WHY DID YOU DO THAT?
Computer: TO STACK UP THE RED CUBE , A LARGE RED BLOCK AND A LARGE
GREEN CUBE.

Person: WHY DID YOU DO THAT?
Computer: BECAUSE YOU ASKED ME TO.

Person: HOW DID YOU DO IT?
Computer: BY PUTTING A LARGE...

Person: HAVE YOU PICKED SUPERBLOCK UP SINCE WE BEGAN?
Computer: YES.

Person: WHY DID YOU DROP IT?
Computer: BY "IT", I ASSUME YOU MEAN THE SUPERBLOCK.
I CAN'T EXPLAIN A NON-EXISTENT EVENT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHRDLU
One was that SHRDLU's world was so simple that the entire set of
objects and locations could be described by including as few as
perhaps 50 words: nouns like "block" and "cone", verbs like "place on"
and "move to", and adjectives like "big" and "blue". The possible
combinations of these basic language building blocks were quite
simple, and the program was fairly adept at figuring out what the user
meant.

Herc
--
www.microPROLOG.com


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.