John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Which has the implication that computers will never be capable of 
> handling the process of software engineering without some level of human 
> assistance.

  Humans are bound to the same limitations as computers. If it has been
proven that a certain problem is not solvable, a human cannot solve it
either.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Which has the implication that computers will never be capable of 
>> handling the process of software engineering without some level of human 
>> assistance.
> 
>   Humans are bound to the same limitations as computers. If it has been
> proven that a certain problem is not solvable, a human cannot solve it
> either.
> 
See, sometimes we do agree ;)

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Humans are bound to the same limitations as computers. If it has been
> proven that a certain problem is not solvable, a human cannot solve it
> either.

Curiosly, they just happen to be having this exact debate on one of the 
Haskell mailing lists right now. (Evidently some people actually believe 
that the human mind is capable of deductions that are beyond 
Turing-completeness. Naturally, they offer no basis for this belief 
beyond the fact that computers don't program themselves yet...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> (Evidently some people actually believe 
> that the human mind is capable of deductions that are beyond 
> Turing-completeness.

  "Turing-completeness" doesn't mean "can calculate everything that can
be calculated", but "can calculate everything a Turing machine can calculate".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> (Evidently some people actually believe 
>> that the human mind is capable of deductions that are beyond 
>> Turing-completeness.
> 
>   "Turing-completeness" doesn't mean "can calculate everything that can
> be calculated", but "can calculate everything a Turing machine can calculate".

Are you saying there are things that can be calculated but not by a 
Turing machine?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Are you saying there are things that can be calculated but not by a 
> Turing machine?

  As far as I can see, the Church-Turing thesis ("if an algorithm
(a procedure that terminates) exists then there is an equivalent Turing
Machine or applicable lambda-function for that algorithm") is a
hypothesis, not an axiom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-Turing_thesis

  The concept of hypercomputability, while theoretical, has been
considered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercomputation

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Which has the implication that computers will never be capable of 
>> handling the process of software engineering without some level of human 
>> assistance.
> 
> Humans are bound to the same limitations as computers.

This has not been proven for all limitations pertaining to computers.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Humans are bound to the same limitations as computers. If it has been
> proven that a certain problem is not solvable, a human cannot solve it
> either.

Not necessarily. Turing machines don't have a source of random input, 
while humans do. Humans may or may not be deterministic.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Turing machines don't have a source of random input

  Would it change the properties of a turing machine if it had a source
of true randomness (eg. a command like "put a random value here")?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Turing machines don't have a source of random input
> 
>   Would it change the properties of a turing machine if it had a source
> of true randomness (eg. a command like "put a random value here")?

I'm not sure. It would make it very difficult to have a UTM simulate it, 
for example, that doesn't have that instruction, so I'd have to guess 
"yes". :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message