[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DotGNU]flexible for users, or flexible for developers?(wasRe:User I

From: Timothy Rue
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]flexible for users, or flexible for developers?(wasRe:User Interfaces)
Date: 11 Jul 2002 12:30:40 -0500

On 10-Jul-02 19:03:07 BioChem333 <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-07-10 at 15:47, Timothy Rue wrote:
>> In other words all things
>> are not possible in any one language. I believe the most logical
>> example is that of the mathmatical Turning Haulting Problem.

> Turing's halting problem isn't about language limitation, but about
> the limits of what is and is not computable, no matter the language.

This may be true, certainly the target wasn't to make a statement about
language, but then it is only one example of a set of like problems.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two celebrated theorems in
mathematical logic proven by Kurt Gödel in 1930. Somewhat simplified,
the first theorem states that in any [axiomatic system]? sufficiently
strong to allow one to do basic arithmetic, one can construct a statement
    - EITHER -

can be neither proven nor disproven within that system

    - OR -

can be both proven and disproven within that system.

In the first case, we call the axiomatic system incomplete, in the second
case we call it inconsistent. A short version of the first incompletenes
theorem is therefore: "Any sufficiently strong consistent axiomatic system
is incomplete."

Gödel's second incompleteness theorem, which is proved by formalizing
part of the proof of the first within the system itself, states that a
sufficiently strong consistent system cannot prove its own consistency.

>..Saying that the halting problem is a language limitation is
> like saying Einstein's c-limit is really a limitation of calculus
> rather than physical law.

we don't know alot about gravity and there is even more we don't know
about physics. What we have is the development of theories that have
proven to work well enough to allow us to do more. i.e. some research
to expand our theories

> The language of mathematical reasoning has
> no limits, afaik, when it comes to expressing and analyzing what is
> and is not computable. Also, afaik, most programming languages are
> capable of expressing all that is technically computable, although
> with varying degrees of difficulty for the developer and compiler.

Had it not been for the development of the Hindu-Arabic Decimal System that
included the zero,........ Well, can't do a whole lot with the Roman
Numerial System and certainly not containing the concept of zero.nothing
having value, we'd not been able to develop the binary system so
fundamental to developing and using computers. And it took 300 years to
propogate this Decimal System into wide spread understanding and use (to
replace the Roman Numeral system).

The point is, language does have limitations, and just because you cannot
see beyond the current language perspectives to see th elimitations,
doesn't mean it's absolute, complete.

And this "complete/incomplete" subject matter, along with dotgnu
"business/making money" brings up something else I've been meaning to
write here about.

Have you seen the movie (based on a true story) "A Beautiful Mind"?

John Nash, a crazy person, won a Nobel Prize in 1994!

A mathmatician... who developed Governing Dynamics - Nash Equilibrium -
for strategic non-cooperative games,theories which has influenced global
trade negotiations, national labor relations and even breakthroughs in
evolutionary biology.

"Adam Smith needs revision" - The best comes when people do what is best
for themselves - Adam Smith. But the Nash change is - best result will
come when everyone does what is best for themselves and the group ---
Governing Dynamics.

You might say Adam Smiths theories was the language of ecomony, limited,
not complete. John Nash extended, made some corrections and due these
changes, we been able to accomplish more.

The theories of John Nash should be easy to understand by genuine
supporters of the GNU/GPL direction.

When NewTek came out with the Video Toaster and Lightwave many feared
everybody and their brother and sister and cousin would become animators
and video production artist, because the cost of the system was so far
below the then current technology cost that it put these capabilities in
the hands of the general consumer. But that is not what happened. What
happened is that those educated in such arts as film making became the
better and best animators, not the general public or even the programmers
who had to learn a great deal from those in industry of video, film and
animation to make the NewTek products what they are today. But the total
advancement effect we have from such a move by NewTek is that of far more
advanced technology and application of animation and special effects, as
it allowed many really good people to get in the field and help direct
further advancements.

So Let go of your Precepts. Don't judge what you think the user will
or won't do (John Nash was/is crazy). For alot of what they do and don't
do with computers is based upon what they are allowed to do and otherwise
lead to believe they cannot do, within the resource constraints they have
to deal with that the computer software industry dictates to them.

So instead, pursue a direction of making it easier for the users to do
more for themselves....... and the group (GPL).

Otherwise the Software industry is seriously cornering itself in it's own
ignorance of all that is, by thinking all there is at the control top, is
the programming mindsets.

If the current State of the Software Industry is not in the scope of
non-cooperative games.......... then what is?

Timothy Rue
Email @ mailto:address@hidden
Web @

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]