Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="SVCBeercats, post: 3171697, member: 7874"] 12) I am not disparaging accidental discoveries.[B] I knew you were not disrespecting Willy.[/B] 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. [B]I agree. However, to recognize the accidental discovery for what it is and further develop it; should also receive an acknowledgement. Nobel Prize selections sometime baffle me. I find it irritating that Einstein never received a Nobel Prize for his General Theory of Relativity. He received it for discovering the law of the photoelectric effect. He should have at least two Nobel Prizes.[/B] 7) The Turing paper was actually discussed on this thread. I focused on the [S][B]perhaps[/B][/S] 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) [B]You are right about Turing.[/B] [B]Janci's primary contribution centers on the stored program concept and the required computer architecture, e.g., a Control Unit, Arithmetic and Logic Unit (ALU), Memory Unit, Registers and Inputs/Outputs. [/B] [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,421

Messages: 4,395,622

Members: 10,208

Latest member: jskwrite