flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
Index
> Heap > Which came first: Apple's Finder or Microsoft's Explorer? 
Author 

typedef
I checked revolution's website and feel I could have done more looking but I'm lazy.
Last edited by typedef on 24 Feb 2015, 03:20; edited 3 times in total 

23 Feb 2015, 14:42 

HaHaAnonymous
[ Post removed by author. ]
Last edited by HaHaAnonymous on 28 Feb 2015, 17:52; edited 1 time in total 

23 Feb 2015, 15:10 

sleepsleep
very interesting. create, or discover,
assumption and definition on exist, line on proof or cross fingers. what is finder, and when is explorer, 

23 Feb 2015, 15:45 

typedef
revolution wrote:
lol. 

23 Feb 2015, 15:50 

revolution
typedef, please don't misquote me. I didn't call HaHaAnonymous an idiot, nor did I quote HaHaAnonymous's post.


23 Feb 2015, 15:53 

HaHaAnonymous
[ Post removed by author. ]
Last edited by HaHaAnonymous on 28 Feb 2015, 17:52; edited 1 time in total 

23 Feb 2015, 16:01 

sleepsleep
how about,
they already exists before they are created, =) and that is trillion zillion and billion idk, you just imagine the biggest infinity years ago, we just rediscover those streams of bits. if everything is here before it is here, 

23 Feb 2015, 16:06 

Tyler
revolution wrote: If all possible algorithms already exist then where are all the undiscovered ones? Do they exist in someone's brain just waiting to be found? Essentially, the argument I'm making is that all of our math (that I know of) follows from abstractions and generalizations of the natural numbers, and that these extensions and generalizations are natural in the sense that they are goal directed. We see a problem in with the integers, so we extend them to the rationals to solve the problem. We see that matrix multiplication, like rotations in 3D, are not commutative, so we generalize a theory of operations that don't commute. Computing seems to be similarly preexisting, like we're discovering things. The Turing machine is, as far as we know, (maybe we know this for sure, IDK) the most powerful finitely describable computing machine. All attempts to make something more powerful have been reduced to being equivalent with it. Maybe the aliens describe it differently, but their description will very likely be equivalent to ours in terms of what is computable and what isn't. 

23 Feb 2015, 17:06 

MHajduk
Tyler wrote: Essentially, the argument I'm making is that all of our math (that I know of) follows from abstractions and generalizations of the natural numbers, and that these extensions and generalizations are natural in the sense that they are goal directed. We should rather start from the other "end of the stick" here: only "natural" numbers are those that are real and transcendental ones, i.e. π, e etc. because starting from the natural numbers we always end in the formulas that contain such real constants. That's obviously heresy, I know, but that's exactly I discovered for myself thinking about the theme for some time. Leopold Kronecker is basically wrong stating that Leopold Kronecker wrote: God made the integers, all the rest is the work of man. 

23 Feb 2015, 19:07 

revolution
I'm not so sure that countability requires identicalness. Is is not about definitions? If we define something loosely enough then it could encompass many different things and thus allow us to count them. Example: "Animals with two eyes" are countable but we don't expect them to all be identical. Just the word "animals" on its own is ambiguous and is a very loose definition, but in a certain contexts it can be clear what is meant.


24 Feb 2015, 06:49 

typedef
Tyler wrote:
You guys play nice now. lol 

24 Feb 2015, 13:28 

revolution
Tyler wrote:


24 Feb 2015, 14:31 

revolution
typedef: A "your mama" joke? The '00s called and want their text back.


24 Feb 2015, 14:33 

Tyler
MHajduk wrote:
But again, when we start talking about categories and stuff, we're getting into philosophy (epistemology). I get your point with pi and e being fundamental to nature. I guess I may be too strongly anchored to a view of looking at how math actually was developed. (A sort of theoretical history of how it must have happened.) E.g. A caveman had one apple, found another, then had S(1)=2 apples. Then he wondered what would happen if he found 3 more, then realized he have S(S(S(2)))=5 and invented the concept of iterative application of the S function (i.e. addition). Then he ate one and discovered the inverse of S, then ate two more and discovered subtraction. And so on, you get the idea. 

24 Feb 2015, 21:21 

typedef
revolution wrote: typedef: A "your mama" joke? The '00s called and want their text back. 

24 Feb 2015, 22:49 

< Last Thread  Next Thread > 
Forum Rules:

Copyright © 19992020, Tomasz Grysztar.
Powered by rwasa.