Content deleted Content added
→Removal of first sentence: Citation #1 |
|||
Line 236:
:Algorithm already has a generally agreed definition here- [[algorithm]] [[User:Bhny|Bhny]] ([[User talk:Bhny|talk]]) 01:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
---
Here's a citation. I cc'd this off the [[Unsolved problems in computer science]] talk page. Both it and its fellow Church-Turing thesis were deemed "unworthy":
. . .Algorithm: what is such a beast?. . .
This is a holding place for the following. The intent is not to push this or any other point of view, but to make the question evident. A number of epistomologic and mathematical issues bubble up from this:
: from https://research.microsoft.com/~gurevich/
:[164] Andreas Blass and Yuri Gurevich
:''"Algorithms: A Quest for Absolute Definitions"''
:Bulletin of the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science
:Number 81 (October 2003), pages 195-225.
:Reprinted in Chapter on Logic in Computer Science
:Current Trends in Theoretical Computer Science
:World Scientific, 2004, pages 283-311
:Reprinted in ''Church's Thesis After 70 Years''
:Ontos Verlag, 2006, 24-57
:See more details here
::What is an algorithm? The interest in this foundational problem is not only theoretical; applications include specification, validation and verification of software and hardware systems. We describe the quest to understand and define the notion of algorithm. We start with the Church-Turing thesis and contrast Church's and Turing's approaches, and we finish with some recent investigations.
:wvbailey[[User:Wvbailey|Wvbailey]] 00:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. The problem could be stated as "when are two algorithms equivalent?". Seems worth adding, and less bogus than trying to prove the Church-Turing thesis. [[Special:Contributions/76.197.56.242|76.197.56.242]] ([[User talk:76.197.56.242|talk]]) 15:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
---
Bill[[User:Wvbailey|Wvbailey]] ([[User talk:Wvbailey|talk]]) 01:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
| |||