Re: Provability
- From: Don Stockbauer <donstockbauer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:15:31 -0700
On Oct 24, 11:28 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 24, 8:58 pm, Michael Press <rub...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article
<1193251799.743613.21...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Marshall <marshall.spi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 24, 10:57 am, Michael Press <rub...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
An algorithm is a procedure that takes input and
terminates with a well-defined and asserted result.
That it does terminate with the asserted result must be
proven. Until we accept the proof, it is not an
algorithm. The notion of right answer is not part of
the definition of algorithm.
That definition is extremely narrow, and does not correspond
to any usage of the term that I can recall in many years
of being a programmer.
I'm not even sure I'd buy in to the "well-defined" part.
Having a "probabilistic algorithm" doesn't sound like
a contradiction in terms. In fact, Googling it just
now it gets a lot of hits. Neither does "proven correct,
proven terminating algorithm" sound redundant.
I fail to see the utility in defining an algorithm
to be no more than a partial recursive function.
A theorem is not a theorem until it is proven.
What is your standard for implementing a method
into production code?
To be fair, there is a world of difference between
the standards of ordinary commercial software and
the standards of rigor for a mathematical proof.
In general, the former is driven by marketplace
concerns, meaning whatever can be banged out
most quickly that works a majority of the time.
I think it was Scott McNealy that said that most
software has the shelf life of a banana. Whereas
math is for the ages.
I vaguely suppose that what is CS is called an
algorithm is more like what in math would be
called a formula.
Marshall
So the following has a "short shelf life?"
C Add A and B and print the answer
C = A + B
Print "A + B = " C
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Provability
- From: Marshall
- Re: Provability
- References:
- Provability
- From: Victor Porton
- Re: Provability
- From: Robert Israel
- Re: Provability
- From: Michael Press
- Re: Provability
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: Provability
- From: Michael Press
- Re: Provability
- From: Marshall
- Re: Provability
- From: Michael Press
- Re: Provability
- From: Marshall
- Provability
- Prev by Date: Re: Provability
- Next by Date: Re: Provability
- Previous by thread: Re: Provability
- Next by thread: Re: Provability
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading