Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="eebmg, post: 3171676, member: 7548"] Fantastic work but I would like to comment on your assessment regarding my responses (or lack of responses) 12) I am not disparaging accidental discoveries. They are very important for progress. I just think it should be distinguished from discoveries and work built from careful planning and directed knowledge which provides the guidance to build the proper experiments needed to demonstrate a certain hypothesis. 7) The Turing paper was actually discussed on this thread. I focused on the perhaps minor piece where Turing discussed the "undecidability " concept that there are undecidable propositions and no computer (or algorithm) can be built to answer them. It was actually you [USER=7874]@SVCBeercats[/USER] who critiqued this and mentioned that Kurt Godel should be the real intelligence behind this idea which I agreed with. While the paper may also demonstrate that any mathematical "solvable" problem can be decided by a computer (Turing Machine), I do not agree that this paper should have the status of ushering in Theoretical Computer Science. In my opinion. John Von Neumann has by a very wide margin that honor (theoretically and practically) [/QUOTE]