> "zaimoni@ksu.edu" at Dec 17, 96 09:36:32 am
> > Computer: I don't *think* a nonalgorithmic search is possible.
> > Human: We don't have decent specs, why should I presume anything about
> > the impossibility of nonalgorithmic searches?
>
> Start from the definition of a search and state that a "nonalgorithmic
> search" is an oxymoron of the first class?
If the definition excludes the Axiom of Choice, I might go with that.
However, that would be a neat way to derange most of conventional Calculus!
[CLIP]
> > Unless you're trying to verify that the algorithm does what you said it
> > did, and you're trying to rule out a compiler error! [It usually isn't
> > worth trying to figure out directly if the ASM listing actually
> > corresponds to the source code.]
>
> At this point you're no longer trying to solve the problem, you're
> trying to prove you did it right. :) My test is simple, `does it
> work? Yes? Then does it matter if it exploits a compiler error? :)'
It's a viewpoint difference.
In the Math Department [sic], the problem is *not* solved until it is
proven that it was done right. Provisional solutions are often all that
is required in the physical world, however.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////