Nedeljko, vidi ovako. Ja cu sad pred svima da pokazem da ti nisi u pravu. Moze bilo ko da se umesa, i da arbitrira, i da kaze svoje misljenje.
Dakle ja tvrdim da ti ne znas ni osnove kompjuterske nauke, i sada cu to pokazati pred svima. Ti ne bi prosao ni najjednostavniju vezbu najnizih lekcija iz ove oblasti.
Da sam znao da tako malo znanja imas o toj temi, nikad ne bih pre nekoliko godina uopste i ulazio u diskusiju sa tobom iz oblasti CS.
Ja cu sad dokazati da si ti lupao gluposti, i pricao o stvarima koje uopste ne poznajes. I da si jos uz to i vredjao one koji su bili u pravu, i pokusavali da ti pokazu da to sto pricas nije tacno.
Ovo sve radim zbog toga, da bih video kakav ce tvoj odgovor biti na ocigledne dokaze, da ti agresivno vredjas clanove foruma, a da pri tome nemas nikakva znanja o tome sto pricas.
Zaista me zanima, kakav ce to odgovor biti?
Tjuringova dilema, da li je covek masina, poznata je svakom ko poznaje bar osnove kompjuterske nauke.
I poznato mu je da je nastala vezano za Gedelovu teorije kompletnosti.
“Halting problem”, je u stvari sustina “decision” problema. To je osnova “computability” teorije.
“This is equivalent to the problem of deciding, given a program and an input, whether the program will eventually halt when run with that input, or will run forever.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
Dakle koliko neko treba da ne zna o toj temi, da bi izgovorio ovako nesto? Pogledajmo sad sta je Nedeljko napisao:
Citat:
Nedeljko: Ostalo: Već sam ti rekao - da bi počeo da prestaješ da budeš budala moraš prvo shvatiti da si budala. Dotle pomaka nema.
Spadaš u one koji pročitaju površno nešto o nečemu o čemu nemaju pojma i počnu da pričaju o tome kao da su stručnjaci, a ne znaju ni šta znače izrazi koje koriste.
Primeri se mogu naći na svakoj temi na kojoj učestvuješ. Evo, recimo na ovoj temi si
ovde povezao pitanje da li je čovek mašina sa problemom zaustavljanja. Ne, taj problem se povezuje sa Tjuringovim testom, a problem zaustavljanja je nešto sasvim drugo. Primena Tjuringovog testa ti je ono na vebu kad ti prikaže neka deformisana slova, pa traži da ih ukucaš. Rešavajući zadatak koji je lak za ljude, a težak za mašine dokazuješ da si čovek, a ne mašina, tj. server te identifikuje kao čoveka.
Eto ovim postom on pokazuje kako ja ne znam sta pricam.
Koliko covek treba da ne zna o kompjuterskoj nauci da bi izgovorio ovako nesto? Dakle ja cu vam sada reci. Ovo je manje od najnizeg poznavanja. Nize od najnizeg je pogresno, gde se ocitava neznanje osnovnog.
Najludje je to sto ja uopste vodim ovakav razgovor. Ovo je neverovatno. Ne mogu da verujem sta ja sada moram da napisem ovde. xD
Da ne bih isao suvise daleko i siroko, pomenucu samo jednog od mnogih eksperata iz ove oblasti. Izvora ima zaista mnogo, ali pruzicu samo neke ocigledne dokaze, mada mi je sumanuto kad pomislim da to uopste radim sad. Neverovatno.
Dakle da pocnemo sa prof. Brian Jack Copeland.
Ko je on? Hajde da ga predstavimo, posto ce Nedeljko verovatno da ga izvredja, i da kaze da nema pojma o matematici ili kompjuterskoj nauci.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Copeland
Brian Jack Copeland (born 1950) is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
His education includes a BPhil and a DPhil from the University of Oxford in philosophy, where he undertook research on modal and non-classical logic under the supervision of Dana Scott.[2]
Jack Copeland is the Director of the Turing Archive for the History of Computing,[3] an extensive online archive on the computing pioneer Alan Turing. He has also written and edited books on Turing. He is one of the people responsible for identifying the concept of hypercomputation and machines more capable than Turing machines.
Copeland has held visiting professorships at the University of Sydney, Australia (1997, 2002), the University of Aarhus, Denmark (1999), the University of Melbourne, Australia (2002, 2003), and the University of Portsmouth, United Kingdom (1997–2005). In 2000, he was a Senior Fellow in the Dibner Institute for the History of Science and Technology[4] at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States.
He is also President of the US Society for Machines and Mentality[5] and a member of the UK Bletchley Park Trust Heritage Advisory Panel.
Zasto sam pomenuo bas njega? Pa zato sto cemo u njegovom radu citati esencijalne i izvorne Tjuringove tekstove.
Pa da pocnemo. Unapred se izvinjavam svima zbog engleskog, bice obimno, tako da bi mi ipak trebalo previse vremena da prevodim, samo zarad mog suludog posta, gde objasnjavam Nedeljku Tjuringovu dilemu o tome, da li je covek masina.
Nedeljko je rekao ovo:
Citat:
Nedeljko: Evo, recimo na ovoj temi si
ovde povezao pitanje da li je čovek mašina sa problemom zaustavljanja. Ne, taj problem se povezuje sa Tjuringovim testom, a problem zaustavljanja je nešto sasvim drugo. Primena Tjuringovog testa ti je ono na vebu kad ti prikaže neka deformisana slova, pa traži da ih ukucaš. Rešavajući zadatak koji je lak za ljude, a težak za mašine dokazuješ da si čovek, a ne mašina, tj. server te identifikuje kao čoveka.
Dakle on je u stvari na brzinu guglao o tjuringovoj dilemi o coveku i masini, i naravno naleteo na tjuringov test.
A mene vredja i govori da sam budala sto sam povezao pitanje da li je covek masina sa problemom zaustavljanja. I jos je izvrnuo moje reci.
A sada da vidimo sta kaze licno Tjuring. Neke osnovne cinjenice, koje znaju i studenti na prvoj godini fakulteta.
Sada na scenu stupa doticni professor Jack Copeland, sa njegovim radom na tu temu. Dakle to je opste poznata cinjenica, ali mi je opet moramo pokazivati Nedeljku.
The Mathematical Objection:
Turing, Gödel, and Penrose on the Mind
Jack Copeland, July 2008
Tako se zove rad. I u njemu pise:
"The straightforward unsolvability or incompleteness results about systems of logic amount to this
α) One cannot expect to be able to solve the Entscheidungsproblem for a system
β) One cannot expect that a system will cover all possible methods of proof."
Pa sada malo Gedela, posto sam pominjao njega u ovoj temi, i Tjuringovu dilemu o tome da li je covek masina, u kontekstu Gedelovih teorema.
Gödel also says:
"The incompleteness results do not rule out the possibility that there is a theorem-proving computer which is in fact equivalent to mathematical intuition. ... If my result [incompleteness] is taken together with the rationalistic attitude which Hilbert had and which was not refuted by my results, then [we can infer] the sharp result that mind is not mechanical. This is so, because, if the mind were a machine, there would, contrary to this rationalistic attitude, exist number-theoretic questions undecidable for the human mind." (Gödel in conversation with Wang)
A sad malo Penrose:
Interestingly, Penrose appears to turn his back on the premiss of rationalistic optimism in the passage that we looked at earlier:
"[I]t need not be the case that human mathematical understanding is ... powerful enough, in principle, to solve each instance of the halting problem."
Pa sad opet malo Tjuring o njegovoj dilemi o razlici izmedju coveka i masine:
"It is (so far as we know at present) possible that any assigned number of figures of δ can be calculated, but not by a uniform process." (Turing 1936)
He also said, in a lecture given circa 1951:
"By Gödel's famous theorem, or some similar argument, one can show that however the [theorem-proving] machine is constructed there are bound to be cases where the machine fails to give an answer, but a mathematician would be able to." (Turing circa
1951, italics added)
Pa sad opet malo Gedel :
Gödel: "If my result is taken together with the rationalistic attitude ... then [we can infer] the sharp result that mind is not mechanical. This is so, because, if the mind were a machine, there would, contrary to this rationalistic attitude, exist number-theoretic questions undecidable for the human mind."
Pa opet Tjuring:
Turing uses the image of a sequence of increasingly powerful proof-producing machines in his 1950 paper 'Computing Machinery and Intelligence': "In short, then, there might be men cleverer than any given machine, but then again there might be other machines cleverer again, and so on." (Turing,'Computing Machinery and Intelligence': 451)
Izvinjavam se svima sto nema prevoda, ali ovo ce razumeti oni koji su ukljuceni u tu oblast i ovu temu.
A sad moze i malo wiki:
Since the negative answer to the halting problem shows that there are problems that cannot be solved by a Turing machine, the Church–Turing thesis limits what can be accomplished by any machine that implements effective methods. However, not all machines conceivable to human imagination are subject to the Church–Turing thesis (e.g. oracle machines are not). It is an open question whether there can be actual deterministic physical processes that, in the long run, elude simulation by a Turing machine, and in particular whether any such hypothetical process could usefully be harnessed in the form of a calculating machine (a hypercomputer) that could solve the halting problem for a Turing machine amongst other things. It is also an open question whether any such unknown physical processes are involved in the working of the human brain, and whether humans can solve the halting problem.
Evo ti ovaj post. Sad sam ga procitao i muka mi je od njega. Predomislio sam se, ne moras nista da odgovaras. Mucnina je prevelika. Previse je ovo nisko. Ne mogu ni pored najbolje volje. Odmoricu malo.
Citat:
Nedeljko: Na ovom forumu imam samo članstvo, baš kao i ti, a što se ostatka tiče, odlično, ne moraš više ni da se javljaš, ni ti, ni kandorus, ni EmmaR. Bez vas je forum lepši.
Na ostalo ne vredi ni odgovarati, jer ionako ne možeš da shvatiš ništa o čemu pišem. Iš!