Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 73:
This is, by the way, one of the motivations for the study of the [[halting problem]]. How do you prove that a certain method is in fact an algorithm?
:Well, it is done one computational procedure at a time. I don't want to be facetious. I agree with the concern here, but we may be mixing too many things together. Maybe the lapse is one of carelessness on the part of computer scientists, though I think it is more of an overgeneralization by practitioners and in the teaching of programming, not so much hard-core computer science. Either way, I think there is a legitimate concern here.
:I am concerned with the substitution of computer codes for algorithmic definitions also, though there is nothing that says a computer code can't implement an algorithm. (Be shown to terminate, clearly consist of well-defined operations and rules for their progressive carrying-out, etc.)
:But one must be careful about taking a computer code as the expression of an algorithm. For example, there is more assumed in the Ruby illustration of [[binary search]] than meets the eye.
:So what is to be done here, in this section, and in the expression/illustration of algorithms in Wikipedia? I wouldn't recommend an overhaul, though maybe some tidiness can be introduced. For example, the [[binary search]] section currently makes it clear that it is using Ruby as a means for illustrating an algorithm. Considering that it makes the idea of binary search pretty accessible, I would not complain.
:Here in the section on [[algorithm]], I would be more concerned. I also think that maybe procedure should be used in a lot of places, including [[binary search]], and not over-use "algorithm" quite so much.
:I have given longer expression to my concern in discussions around the notion that programs are rarely algorithms. I also have an in-progress article on the question "[http://nfocentrale.net/orcmid/readings/R010101.htm Do Programs Teach Algorithms]" that, as it happens, uses Binary Search (and Python) as a basis for discussion. --[[User:Orcmid|Orcmid]] 02:09, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
There is an important reason to preserve the strict notion of algorithm (and somehow allow the important ''informal'' notion of effective procedure to survive as well). It is not just historically valuable, it preserves important content. Many of the historical breakthrough results were produced using the strict notion of algorithm. When there is a relaxed use of the term, now, and those earlier results are repeated, they are implied to cover a wider territory than has ever been demonstrated. That leads to sloppy science and, potentially, outright error. I think we should be more prudent, but still find good ways to speak and write in an informal setting. --[[User:Orcmid|Orcmid]] 02:09, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
=== Algorithm Removal ===
| |||