Prev: Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
Next: Film about dead monkeys wins Oscars
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 27 Apr 2010 13:35
zuhair <zaljohar(a)gmail.com> writes:

> Do you have the source pointing to this paper, especially on-line.

Turing's paper is available through JSTOR. (I have sent you a copy in
e-mail.)

--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi)

"Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: zuhair on 27 Apr 2010 13:38
Lets make a simple comparison between how the formula
in Replacement is written using conventional ways of writing
it used in this Usenet (2), and the technique that I introduced
here(1).

(1) x!yQ(x,y) > a .b zb<>.xaQ(x,z)

(2) AxE!yQ(x,y) -> AaEbAz(zeb<->ExeaQ(x,z))


To me (a personal opinion) (2) look so crumbled, while (1) is much
neater and clearer.

However such a comparison would only appeal to people who might share
with me the same personal preference.

However one thing that is "objective" and not personal here, is
that (1) is shorter than (2).

Zuhair



From: zuhair on 27 Apr 2010 13:39
On Apr 27, 12:35 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote:
> zuhair <zaljo...(a)gmail.com> writes:
> > Do you have the source pointing to this paper, especially on-line.
>
> Turing's paper is available through JSTOR. (I have sent you a copy in
> e-mail.)
>
> --
> Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi)
>
> "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
>  - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Thanks.

Zuhair
From: zuhair on 27 Apr 2010 16:02
On Apr 27, 12:35 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote:
> zuhair <zaljo...(a)gmail.com> writes:
> > Do you have the source pointing to this paper, especially on-line.
>
> Turing's paper is available through JSTOR. (I have sent you a copy in
> e-mail.)
>
> --
> Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi)
>
> "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
>  - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Thanks, I just glanced at it, it is a neat use of the dots, perhaps
the best that can
be done using these dots, but honestly the whole methodology is also
crumbled, there is no need for those dots, to me artistic use of
spaces
is much better.

Zuhair
From: Tim Little on 27 Apr 2010 22:37
On 2010-04-27, zuhair <zaljohar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> If one want to say P or (Q or (R or S) for example then this must be
> written as
>
> P | Q | R|S
>
> or if one want to write (P or Q) or (R or S) then this must be written
> as:
>
> P|Q | R|S

To quote your own earlier passage:
This gives the impression of a scribble made by mentally ill
patients, rather than a way of writing a rigorous formal language.


- Tim
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Prev: Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
Next: Film about dead monkeys wins Oscars