Em 19/04/2010 16:13, Igor Stasenko < siguctua@gmail.com > escreveu:
On 19 April 2010 22:04, wrote:
Em 19/04/2010 14:53, Igor Stasenko < siguctua@gmail.com > escreveu:
On 19 April 2010 20:29, Michael Haupt wrote:
Hi Igor, On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Computer always 'knows' what next operation it going to perform, and don't need to use any precedence. ... enter quantum computers. :-P let me rephrase that: by building any machine, we using a certain set of principles, on which it will function. So then, we could _predict_ how it will behave, if we provide a set of instructions. NO. As historical counter examples there are the Neural net based computer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptrons
And where is a contradiction? A first two paragraphs on that page describing a principles on which it built. And then, you saying that you can't predict how it behaves after you built it using these principles?
Igor your post makes me believe you read only the paragraphs you quoted (and are rightfully entitled to) and aren't willing to drill down into perceptrons or homeostats. So to avoid a lengthy detour from the essential argument, let's think of a simple device, say a non loaded (a.k.a. 'honest') die or a roulette built to Monte Carlo standards: You build any of them according to very well known principles, can you predict the outcomes except for the platitude that the dice can come from one to six each trow or similar for the roulette?
which was built as a machine, or the homeostat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostat (ditto). my 0.019999...
I tried to use computing devices to be in the realm...