Re: A unique number for every "person" - can it be done?
From: Gerry Quinn (gerryq_at_DELETETHISindigo.ie)
Date: 03/23/05
- Next message: Joe Peschel: "Re: Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard"
- Previous message: Thomas Pornin: "Re: PKI: the end"
- In reply to: Edward G. Nilges: "Re: A unique number for every "person" - can it be done?"
- Next in thread: Programmer Dude: "Re: A unique number for every "person" - can it be done?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:52:47 -0000
In article <f5dda427.0503212254.3ab73cd8@posting.google.com>,
spinoza1111@yahoo.com says...
> Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message news:<MPG.1ca7ecec9d170e7c989f61@news.indigo.ie>...
> > In article <1111288434.370374.45070@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > spinoza1111@yahoo.com says...
> > > "They simply didn't see any need to mention him" while talking about
> > > breaking a theoretical limit? This isn't science. It's a sort of
> > > destructive instinct, Bourdieu's "science, without the scientist" in
> > > which Science can be a sort of organizational effort of
> > > specialists...who, I think, didn't "see any need" to mention Turing
> > > because in some cases on the authorial team (for these types of
> > > writings are generally collective efforts, not a single member feeling
> > > up to the task as an individual), the authors were homophobes and in
> > > other cases ignorant of Turing.
> >
> > It would not have been difficult for you to inform yourself that the
> > article was written by a single individual. It also failed to mention
>
> No, it wouldn't, and I apologize. Nonetheless, institutional prose can
> be written by a single individual who is so Groupthink-sodden he can
> be trusted to avoid a major objection to his grand plan.
>
> Now, I know this sounds like I am trying to weasel out. Well, I am. I
> tend to tune out of prose that fails to even address Turing when it
> discusses (even for all practical purposes of all practical men) the
> THEORETICAL limits of computation.
Perhaps the author feels (as I do) that the Turing-Church limit is not
particularly relevant. He takes it for granted, it's clear, but he's
more interested in the real distinctions that exist between quantum
computers (assuming they work) and electronic computers. For example,
it may be that such computers can solve certain problems with a lower
time complexity order. If so, that's what's interesting, not the
Church-Turing thesis.
> > Church. Perhaps the author is a militant feminist who felt that
> > mentioning a married man with three children would introduce a bias
> > towards patriarchal chauvinism.
>
> Perhaps. Perhaps whales speak French at the bottom of la mer.
> Or, it might be that the 1970s licensed *bien pensants* to so
> generalize critique of injustice as to make unjust arrangements
> undescribable.
> I really doubt, big fella, that the author thought that.
The language warriors may, to some degree, have had their own weapons
turned against them. That is not injustice, it is poetic justice.
However, in no sense is there an indescribeable unjust arrangement here.
It is perfectly possible to use English to suggest that the author was
unwilling to refer to a given category of person; you just did, albeit
couched in an insinuating pseudo-psychological term (why not say
somebody may dislike or object to homosexuals, rather than indulge in
distance reading to determine that they are 'phobic' about them?).
But of course, there's absolutely no reason to believe anything of the
kind.
> > Or it could be that, as I said, he did not feel a reference to the
> > Church-Turing thesis was necessary. He did refer, in as much detail as
> > I thought was necessary, to the differences between the two types of
> > computer. I would very much doubt whether he was ignorant of Turing's
> > work - few who have anything to do with computer science are, and indeed
> > from his discussion it appears he is well aware of the relevant
> > computational issues.
>
> We're going to have to agree to disagree. I punch out when a
> theoretical discovery is announced on the one hand, and then
> renarrated as being for all practical purposes.
>
> Do you think Izzy Newton announced his discoveries in this way? Or Al
> Einstein? No, they did not. They expected empirical confirmation all
> the way down to the bare metal.
Hello? This wasn't an announcement of anything. This was a primer for
beginners on the theory and practice of quantum computing. It has
various links you can follow. Read the thesis of the guy in the
'quantum parallelism' link for more detail, and all the Turing
references you could wish for.
> Even the anonymous author of the Wikipedia got it right, dammit, and
> explicitly mentioned goddamn Turing. Which demonstrates a critical
> difference between Open Prose and Open Source on the one hand, and
> writing for pay on another (somehow I just know the article was
> written for pay, and you are welcome as always to do my homework for
> me and refute or confirm.)
Since it appears to be the homepage of a student, I'm sure all students
would love to know where such money would come from.
[nonsense deleted]
- Gerry Quinn
- Next message: Joe Peschel: "Re: Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard"
- Previous message: Thomas Pornin: "Re: PKI: the end"
- In reply to: Edward G. Nilges: "Re: A unique number for every "person" - can it be done?"
- Next in thread: Programmer Dude: "Re: A unique number for every "person" - can it be done?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
