Content deleted Content added
→Removal of first sentence: Citation #1 |
→Removal of first sentence: citation #2 |
||
Line 237:
:Algorithm already has a generally agreed definition here- [[algorithm]] [[User:Bhny|Bhny]] ([[User talk:Bhny|talk]]) 01:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
--- cItation #1
---▼
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":
Line 269:
Bill[[User:Wvbailey|Wvbailey]] ([[User talk:Wvbailey|talk]]) 01:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
--- Citation #2. This comes from the same talk page as the above, but further down; see #3:
:I just found a fantastic article at http://math.ucsd.edu/~sbuss/ResearchWeb/FutureOfLogic/paper.pdf (cited in a 2007 Dershowitz-Gurevich paper):
::Samual R. Buss, Alexander S. Kechris, Anand Pillay, and Richard A. Shore, “The Prospects for Mathematical Logic in the Twenty-first Century”.
:This paper came from a panel discussion of the Association for Symbolic logic held in Urbana-Champain, June 2000. In particular, under the heading “Computer Science” Shore stated the following three problems for computer science:
::”1. “Prove the Church-Turing thesis by finding intuitively obvious or at least clearly acceptable properties of computation that suffice to guarantee that any function so computed is recursive . . .. Perhaps the question is whether we can be sufficiently precise about what we mean by computation without reference to the method of carrying out the computation so as to give a more general or more convincing argument independent of the physical or logical implementation.
::”2. What does physics have to say about computability (and provability or logic)? Do physical restrictions on the one hand, or quantum computing on the other, mean that we should modify our understanding of computability or at least study other notions?
::”3. Find, and argue conclusively for, a formal definition of algorithm and the appropriate analog of the Church-Turing thesis. . ..Thus we want a definition that will up to some precise equivalence relation capture the notion that two algorithms are the same as opposed to just computing the same function.” (p. 7-8)
There is more from the other authors, including Sam Buss’s question about artificial intelligence, “logic for computer science”, etc. I highly recommend reading this article if someone is interested in expanding this wiki-article. wvbailey
▲---
Bill[[User:Wvbailey|Wvbailey]] ([[User talk:Wvbailey|talk]]) 01:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
| |||