My point is that GTalk is just a Jabber client, and that Google has given third parties permission to use their servers. Moreover, there is a Blackberry client on that page.
You're not doing SMS if you're using Jabber. SMS is a different protocol. So what is your point?
Honestly, I don't know why you waited until she noticed "hot guys" for the birds and the bee talk. Sex is easy to explain. It's something people do, for many reasons, and with many possible consequences: pleasure, reproduction, diseases, money. It happens between two or more people, and everything that happens is entirely between them. There is no right or wrong way to do it, as long as everybody consents.
It's relationships that are hard to explain. Confusion about relationships leads to warped ideas about sex and what it means, not the other way around.
I'm going to go way out on a limb here and guess that it can't fly at 17500m pointing straight and that the 3000m range is not vertical, so it seems you're stretching a bit. So, maybe you can't shoot one down with a jet you can buy on eBay, but still...
You're wrong about the first part, assuming that the GP was correct to describe 17500m as the maximum service altitude, which is defined as the highest altitude at which a plane can continue to climb at 33m per minute. (That's a low angle climb, obviously). You can continue to climb above the maximum service altitude, at a slower pace.
Thanks for the clarification. Just to get this correct: He is being criminally prosecuted based on the fact he released the music a priori the record labels release. I'm sorry, but I have to ask for a little more justification (not that your post wasn't comprehensive).
Some of those "predatory loans" were impossible to pay off. Literally. Even if you kept up the schedule and didn't default. You would be in debt for the rest of your life.
Don't blame "poor people" for this mess. It is the fault of the upper-middle class. They were taking out ridiculous loans, betting on their bubble.
I agree with your assessment, but seeing as how there is no human generated proof of it for the computer to validate, a computer can't answer that question.
I must respectfully disagree. There is no one answer to "Why not?" when the thing asked about is impossible as a matter of principle. Everything you try to get around this limitation is bound to fail. As such, I tried to explain the crux of the matter, and why proof length matters, and explained that even our supposedly more advanced and expressive logic is limited and of unknown (though presumably very strong) validity.
As I said, the crux of the matter is that constructive logics do not assume the law of the excluded middle. This radically changes the properties of proofs, as compared to non-constructive logics. Indeed, the compactness theorem does not hold for the Intutionist logic (L.E.J Brouwer's logic), which puts huge constraints on the kinds of things that can be proved in a finite number of steps. (The compactness theorem for the first order logic says that if a theorem has an "infinite" proof, only finitely many of its steps are necessary for a proof.) Since compactness fails, you have situations where you need to iterate over infinite sets to prove sentences about the sets. If you intend to use a constructive logic to emulate a non-constructive logic, you are going to run into situations where you need to iterate over infinite data sets.
Indeed, the completeness theorem does not hold for constructive logics, as you in general cannot even prove "ForAll x (P(x) or not P(x))"
I offered quite a bit of detail in my post. What do you want clarification on?
Keep in mind that I am specifically NOT going to reject the Church-Turing thesis, which applies to Turing machines and recursive functions (both of which are computationally stronger than real life computers anyway). Turing machines are limited by definition. They are defined a certain way, and things are proved about them, based on the definition. Among those things is that they have the same expressive power as the lambda calculus, and by extension, certain non-constructive logics. It is an accident of history and engineering that real-life computers use a related, weaker computational model.
I agree that "thought" is a vague term. But I think the Chinese Room argument shows us that we should either be very conservative about what we consider thought, or very liberal, or at least have a sliding scale. "Thinking" about chess or translating Cantonese to Mandarin in these terms (as iterating over a data structure looking for an optimum solution) fundamentally amounts to... parsing a data structure and applying a function. There are billions of lines of code that do this today (indeed, every single program including Hello World does this), and "nobody" considers them intelligent. Perhaps we should, but I am not convinced.
The biggest problem in AI research is the lack of Wittgenstein in the coursework. Like most philosophical issues, this is a matter of incompatible vocabularies and abrasive personalities too arrogant to see it.
There isn't really a good answer to your interesting, but ultimately misguided, question. It is not known whether humans can even do (several important) constructive and non-constructive logics without contradiction. This is a consequence of Godel's incompleteness theorem. At the very least, there are mathematical questions that no human can ever answer, even in principal. Our lot is not much different than a computation machines', even if we are on different levels of the logical hierarchy.
The crux of the matter is that most people have come to assume the law of the excluded middle. But not all. L.E.J. Brouwer did a lot of work in constructive logic specifically because he thought the law of the excluded middle is fundamentally flawed.
Not using the law of the excluded middle places strong constraints on what can be proved. If you want to prove that every object in a domain is either P or not P, you have to iterate through the domain, and show that each one is P or not P individually. This is an O(domain) operation. And if the domain is infinite, you will never stop. The classical logic just assumes it. Proving it from axioms is an O(1) operation -- you cite the axiom.
It is not known whether a human can ever answer that question. The Riemann hypothesis has not been settled.
I suspect this answer isn't very informative to the reading you meant. The answer lies in the nature of constructive versus non-constructive proof, and the nature of computation. The Howard-Curry isomorphism theorem states that every computation is "equivalent" to a constructive proof (and so vice-versa). But non-constructive logics are stronger than constructive logics.
I am not answering the questions goomba99 was referring to. A computer is. And a computer does not need to "understand" a question in order to answer it. It searches through data sets or computes results in order to answer questions, presumably generating the computations from an appropriate formal question asking language. This process is "undecidable" -- as a consequence, you cannot know if a question can be answered at all, until you TRY.
Slashdot Mirror
The patent isn't to protect an invention, it's to corner a market.
No difference.
From http://www.google.com/talk/about.html
(Emphasis mine)
My point is that GTalk is just a Jabber client, and that Google has given third parties permission to use their servers. Moreover, there is a Blackberry client on that page.
You're not doing SMS if you're using Jabber. SMS is a different protocol. So what is your point?
Disagree.
http://www.google.com/talk/otherclients.html
What involvement would that be? The last few years? That is very little involvement in ending the war.
America sent 16 million troops to Europe and the Pacific. That compares to 3.5 million from the United Kingdom, and about a million from France.
America was only involved the last few years, because America ended the war.
Honestly, I don't know why you waited until she noticed "hot guys" for the birds and the bee talk. Sex is easy to explain. It's something people do, for many reasons, and with many possible consequences: pleasure, reproduction, diseases, money. It happens between two or more people, and everything that happens is entirely between them. There is no right or wrong way to do it, as long as everybody consents.
It's relationships that are hard to explain. Confusion about relationships leads to warped ideas about sex and what it means, not the other way around.
Exactly.
It varies by state, but you're essentially wrong. Look up "DWI".
No, but it casts doubt on any claim that you aren't a homosexual scientologist.
Google explicitly allowed third-party software to use their service. That included commercial 3rd party software.
Good point.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/be
Your cousin Bert obviously has a larger vocabulary than you do, Baldrick.
I'm going to go way out on a limb here and guess that it can't fly at 17500m pointing straight and that the 3000m range is not vertical, so it seems you're stretching a bit. So, maybe you can't shoot one down with a jet you can buy on eBay, but still...
You're wrong about the first part, assuming that the GP was correct to describe 17500m as the maximum service altitude, which is defined as the highest altitude at which a plane can continue to climb at 33m per minute. (That's a low angle climb, obviously). You can continue to climb above the maximum service altitude, at a slower pace.
Who said I did? I was squarely blaming the upper middle class for the housing and credit bubbles.
Ignorance. Or arrogance. Hubris either way.
Thanks for the clarification. Just to get this correct: He is being criminally prosecuted based on the fact he released the music a priori the record labels release. I'm sorry, but I have to ask for a little more justification (not that your post wasn't comprehensive).
Hehehheheh.
Hehahahahahaha
OH MAN MAKE IT STOP
A priori! As if that meant "prior to"!
Some of those "predatory loans" were impossible to pay off. Literally. Even if you kept up the schedule and didn't default. You would be in debt for the rest of your life.
Don't blame "poor people" for this mess. It is the fault of the upper-middle class. They were taking out ridiculous loans, betting on their bubble.
But a fourteenth is 1/14. Shouldn't a fourteenth of March be 3/14?
I agree with your assessment, but seeing as how there is no human generated proof of it for the computer to validate, a computer can't answer that question.
I must respectfully disagree. There is no one answer to "Why not?" when the thing asked about is impossible as a matter of principle. Everything you try to get around this limitation is bound to fail. As such, I tried to explain the crux of the matter, and why proof length matters, and explained that even our supposedly more advanced and expressive logic is limited and of unknown (though presumably very strong) validity.
As I said, the crux of the matter is that constructive logics do not assume the law of the excluded middle. This radically changes the properties of proofs, as compared to non-constructive logics. Indeed, the compactness theorem does not hold for the Intutionist logic (L.E.J Brouwer's logic), which puts huge constraints on the kinds of things that can be proved in a finite number of steps. (The compactness theorem for the first order logic says that if a theorem has an "infinite" proof, only finitely many of its steps are necessary for a proof.) Since compactness fails, you have situations where you need to iterate over infinite sets to prove sentences about the sets. If you intend to use a constructive logic to emulate a non-constructive logic, you are going to run into situations where you need to iterate over infinite data sets.
Indeed, the completeness theorem does not hold for constructive logics, as you in general cannot even prove "ForAll x (P(x) or not P(x))"
I offered quite a bit of detail in my post. What do you want clarification on?
Keep in mind that I am specifically NOT going to reject the Church-Turing thesis, which applies to Turing machines and recursive functions (both of which are computationally stronger than real life computers anyway). Turing machines are limited by definition. They are defined a certain way, and things are proved about them, based on the definition. Among those things is that they have the same expressive power as the lambda calculus, and by extension, certain non-constructive logics. It is an accident of history and engineering that real-life computers use a related, weaker computational model.
I agree that "thought" is a vague term. But I think the Chinese Room argument shows us that we should either be very conservative about what we consider thought, or very liberal, or at least have a sliding scale. "Thinking" about chess or translating Cantonese to Mandarin in these terms (as iterating over a data structure looking for an optimum solution) fundamentally amounts to... parsing a data structure and applying a function. There are billions of lines of code that do this today (indeed, every single program including Hello World does this), and "nobody" considers them intelligent. Perhaps we should, but I am not convinced.
The biggest problem in AI research is the lack of Wittgenstein in the coursework. Like most philosophical issues, this is a matter of incompatible vocabularies and abrasive personalities too arrogant to see it.
There isn't really a good answer to your interesting, but ultimately misguided, question. It is not known whether humans can even do (several important) constructive and non-constructive logics without contradiction. This is a consequence of Godel's incompleteness theorem. At the very least, there are mathematical questions that no human can ever answer, even in principal. Our lot is not much different than a computation machines', even if we are on different levels of the logical hierarchy.
The crux of the matter is that most people have come to assume the law of the excluded middle. But not all. L.E.J. Brouwer did a lot of work in constructive logic specifically because he thought the law of the excluded middle is fundamentally flawed.
Not using the law of the excluded middle places strong constraints on what can be proved. If you want to prove that every object in a domain is either P or not P, you have to iterate through the domain, and show that each one is P or not P individually. This is an O(domain) operation. And if the domain is infinite, you will never stop. The classical logic just assumes it. Proving it from axioms is an O(1) operation -- you cite the axiom.
It is not known whether a human can ever answer that question. The Riemann hypothesis has not been settled.
I suspect this answer isn't very informative to the reading you meant. The answer lies in the nature of constructive versus non-constructive proof, and the nature of computation. The Howard-Curry isomorphism theorem states that every computation is "equivalent" to a constructive proof (and so vice-versa). But non-constructive logics are stronger than constructive logics.
Eh? You call me stupid and then don't like getting called on it. Well that's too bad. You already look like an asshole. Indeed, you have confirmed it.
I am not answering the questions goomba99 was referring to. A computer is. And a computer does not need to "understand" a question in order to answer it. It searches through data sets or computes results in order to answer questions, presumably generating the computations from an appropriate formal question asking language. This process is "undecidable" -- as a consequence, you cannot know if a question can be answered at all, until you TRY.
Good job looking like an asshole, asshole.