September 5th, 2004 12:04 AM
well, perhaps i might need it in the future, but for now i'm sure i don't need them.
but maybe i wouldn't even noticed when i ran into it, it all depends
September 6th, 2004 03:37 AM
Well, if these theories were useless, you wouldnīt be sitting on your machine reading this message right now, you wouldnīt even have a subject called programming. Computers need solid sets of rules to work on, not fuzzy speculations. Saying this type of knowledge is useless would be the same as being an architect that says bricks are useless, just cause he doesnīt mess with bricks directly, but heīll eventually need bricks to build the buildings he designs.
what came first, the chicken or the egg?
i know this isn't really what you ask, but i'm not a programming student to learn all that kind of (IMHO useless) things, i just learn programming myself
p.s. i believe every problem will eventually be solved, just like A.I. will become more stronger and smarter in time[/edit]
September 6th, 2004 10:24 AM
i don't think you get my point, of course programming would need a set of rules, but it is also true that the restrictions of a language might not apply to another language, and if you want to write a program you'll have to think how it should work, and i don't think about things that might not be able to solve, but i think in ways that the language i use WILL be able to work with it..
Well, if these theories were useless, you wouldnīt be sitting on your machine reading this message right now, you wouldnīt even have a subject called programming. Computers need solid sets of rules to work on, not fuzzy speculations. Saying this type of knowledge is useless would be the same as being an architect that says bricks are useless, just cause he doesnīt mess with bricks directly, but heīll eventually need bricks to build the buildings he designs
and problems that are impossible to solve for a computer, but not for a human being, this is what whizkid2300 meant, i know this, but like i said, eventually this problems will get solved since AI is getting more stronger every day....
September 6th, 2004 02:19 PM
The subject of the post isnīt programming languages, itīs about programming problems and Theory of Computation. AI isnīt getting better, itīs just growing larger. With the type of computer logic we have today, itīll be impossible to build anything near intelligence. The AI your talking about is a big database of predefined instructions that the computer uses to analyse different situations and that grows larger every day, eventualy a situation will arise that the database doesnīt provide any answers for and then your "AI" becomes just as dumb as an earthworm and whoever built the database will have to re-implement the programīs "Inteligence" as to adapt to the new situation.
September 6th, 2004 05:00 PM
Ok now i think whizkid2300 has abandoned this thread so i will hyjack it......sorry for that
I don't think you are getting the point.........the thing is we are not talking about programming languages and their rules or restrictions.............that has nothing to do with solving these problems.........absolutly NOTHING............we are talking good old Mathematics .......the name of the subject is Theory of Computation...........Computer is not the only thing that can compute we humans also can do that a bit slower but we still can.............and these problems are not computable with the current mathematical knowledge .
Algrothinms have been here long before Computer existed...........and there is no know algorithm to solve these problems,.....so it would need more ofa mthematician not a computer programmer to solve it
now you are mixing those two things ...........you are just looking computer in a logical sence...........every thing that you do and see on these things still boil down to mathematics.
Now you said something about Programming language and rules and restrictions that it have..............now how does it do it..........how does it recognise it's syntax..............Every language has a grammer now what is a grammer (set of rules ) .........in mahtematical tearms a grammer would be a quadratuple G =(V, A,R,S) where
V is an alphabet
A is a subset of V is a terminal symbols and V-A is called the set of non terminal symbols;
S belongs to V - A is the start symbol
R , is the set of rules is a finite subset os ( V*(V-A*) X V*.
and so on so forth everything has a mathematical notion............the purpose of stating all this is to tell you the things you said were useless are indeed useful to somebody........they are the building block of everything here........now if a person who writes a compiler is not famalier with these terams he wouldn't be able to write it............this discussion is more mathematical than computer related..........this has nothing to do with a particular programming language but the basic building blocks of it........and thats what Theory of Computation deals with .
I hope you know what AI is.........not the defiantion but how it works how does it processas information............It just uses stored information and puts that information through various mathematical functions to get to the answer...............here again it's good old mathematical functions ( conjunction and disjunction and many other )...............as SerpentSin said you can increase the database and make it look like more intelligent......of course new things have been introduced like probabilistic Reasoning, heuristic Reasoning, object Oriented AI etc. ...............but still it needs stored information.........like probabilistic Reasoning is nothing but replacing the old data..........like we found out the old stored knowledge was not correct replace it with the new knowledge in the database......it's like i tried the knowledge in the database a given times say 5 and found it fails every time so i looked for the new knowledge and update my database accordingly...............looks more intelligent isen't it.
a but like i said, eventually this problems will get solved since AI is getting more stronger every day....
i hope i made my point clear
September 6th, 2004 08:48 PM
well , i learned something new about the Theory of Computation , sorry if i misunderstood, although i still think it is going about problems not solvable by computers (mathmetical) but easily solvable by humans...
p.s. how does the human mind work? aren't we just thinking about things due to our memory? meaning, doesn't this look very similar to a computer? we just add one memory to another to create new things, all this could be pre-programmed as a matter of speaking....
only difference, we have an instinct, but for the rest, everything could be written as a program, even the learning part....
September 6th, 2004 09:34 PM
No, the human mind cannot be written as a program, not with the programming tools available until now. Besides instincts, we have something called "reason", and I wont go into that because it isnīt in the scope of the thread. Computers learn because they were instructed to, we are not obliged to learn, yet learning is something the mind canīt avoid. The truth is, no one knows how the human mind works, and maybe thatīs why it canīt be simulated as a computer program. All we know, experimentally, is that it works very different than a computer. Humans donīt really compute, they reason, they simulate computing through reasoning and I guess thats why we cant compute as fast as a computer, because every time we execute something simple like 2 + 2 = 4, even if unconsciously, we go through the entire process of reasoning all over again why these two numbers added up will give us that specific result.
A perfect example of humans vs computers would be the Deep Blue x Kasparov chess event. Deep blue had a big database of every single grandmaster chess game played on the planet and it could mathematically analyse a few billion plays per second based on this database. Kasparov had a lifetime of chess experience and his reasoning. While deep blue would run over billions of plays per second, 90% of these were obviously bad moves and Kasparov would never even think of them, but Deep Blue would keep considering them over and over. In every match, Kasparov would play weird opening moves as to avoid imitating a game already present in deep bluesī database, to force deep blue to start "thinking", he would then later transpose the game to a well known pattern that he already was familiar with, while deep blue would have to start his O(nē) complexity algorithm to find a good move. He crafted this weapon against deep blue right there on the spot, no one taught him. That, my friends, is called Intelligence.
September 7th, 2004 06:38 AM
ok, i give up, you guys made your point, perhaps i'm just way ahead of things.... ;-) but i still believe eventually they can recreate the human mind...
as for the Theory of computation, i did get it wrong then, well then i'm just messing up this thread for no reason , i hope whizkid2300 will still get the correct answer to his question then.....
September 7th, 2004 12:09 PM
Hereīs a good link about programming problems, a few of them, unsolvable
edit: "programming programs?" that was terrible, sorry, fixed it now
September 7th, 2004 12:52 PM
Lepricaun, don't take this the wrong way, but I didn't really pay much attention to your answers, I knew the area of how the answers I was looking for should look. So when I saw yours, I just dismissed it, as either you were talking out of your ass, or you didn't know what you were talking about, or didn't understand the question.
In anyway Thanks to you guys, for trying to explain it, I will definately say that SwordFish_13 explained it best, and I will be looking into it more.
Though, Thanks Serpentin, that last link was ****ing awesome.