No. Economics has axioms that are neither plausible nor realistic as problems with boom bust bubbles fuelled by irrational market exuberance shows. Until they can model the contagious effects of greed and panic in the market they are on hiding to nothing.
Economics is not called the dismal science for nothing.
bidding at 99p. There was nothing special about the coin.
What was interesting to watch was people who supposedly made their living from trading stocks and shares pay over the odds for an object with such a very clear market value. The winner of this auction was not amused but the runner up thought it was hilarious.
Though it has long since split off into its own domain. I don't know about elsewhere but the computer laboratory at my university was *very* hardware capable as well as theoretical research on computability.
It really matters whether an algorithm runs NlogN, N^2 or worse when N gets large. Many of the problems with modern software not scaling well stem from teaching coding as opposed to algorithm design.
Knuth's books are dated now but they still cover a lot of important CS theory stuff just not in a very accessible way.
The Turing machine may be artificial but it forms the basis of many proofs of computability.
er scientists. Nobody calls Von Neumann a computer science except for prete ntious computer scientists attempting to elevate their standing. Von Neuman n's work in computer was relatively minor, if not trivial, compared to ever ything else he did. Same goes for Turing.
ication to the Entscheidungsproblem". It was published in the Proceedings o f the London Mathematical Society journal in two parts, the first on 30 Nov ember and the second on 23 December.[50] In this paper, Turing reformulated
mal and simple hypothetical devices that became known as Turing machines. T he Entscheidungsproblem (decision problem) was originally posed by German m athematician David Hilbert in 1928. Turing proved that his "universal compu ting machine" would be capable of performing any conceivable mathematical c omputation if it were representable as an algorithm. He went on to prove th at there was no solution to the decision problem by first showing that the halting problem for Turing machines is undecidable: it is not possible to d ecide algorithmically whether a Turing machine will ever halt. This paper h as been called "easily the most influential math paper in history".
d the same result marginally earlier, but his paper was a lot less accessib le and much less influential.
That's a bunch of horse manure written by a shameless sycophant, the kind o f people you seem to favor. Turing's proof was a joke and a failure.
formatting link
If you can't explain how any of that applied to decrypting the Enigma, you' re useless.
I see now the brain damaged Brits at Bitchy Park probably selected him for the job because of his familiarity with fraktur.
uter scientists. Nobody calls Von Neumann a computer science except for pre tentious computer scientists attempting to elevate their standing. Von Neum ann's work in computer was relatively minor, if not trivial, compared to ev erything else he did. Same goes for Turing.
plication to the Entscheidungsproblem". It was published in the Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society journal in two parts, the first on 30 N ovember and the second on 23 December.[50] In this paper, Turing reformulat
ormal and simple hypothetical devices that became known as Turing machines. The Entscheidungsproblem (decision problem) was originally posed by German mathematician David Hilbert in 1928. Turing proved that his "universal com puting machine" would be capable of performing any conceivable mathematical computation if it were representable as an algorithm. He went on to prove that there was no solution to the decision problem by first showing that th e halting problem for Turing machines is undecidable: it is not possible to decide algorithmically whether a Turing machine will ever halt. This paper has been called "easily the most influential math paper in history".
hed the same result marginally earlier, but his paper was a lot less access ible and much less influential.
of people you seem to favor. Turing's proof was a joke and a failure.
Turing's proof was neither a joke nor a failure. It wasn't perfect - Turing was human - and it has been tidied up since it was first published. Fred B loggs does like making this kind of claim which really is horse manure.
u're useless.
Fred Bloggs wants an explanation of how a theoretical paper on a particular aspect of computer theory had some application in cracking the encoding sy stem embodied in the Enigma machine, which is one more of his reminders to the rest of us that he doesn't know what he is talking about.
He finds pretty much everybody useless because they won't waste time answer ing the idiotic questions that he poses.
r the job because of his familiarity with fraktur.
What Fred Bloggs thinks he sees may be of interest to those studying early stage senile dementia.
Turing seems to have been brought into the Bletchley Park team mainly becau se he was a brilliant Cambridge mathematician. The fact that his Ph.D. wor k at Princeton had involved building three of four stages of an electro-mec hanical binary multiplier probably helped him get accepted as useful - the people who brought him in probably wouldn't have been aware of that work, o r seen its relevance.
mputer scientists. Nobody calls Von Neumann a computer science except for p retentious computer scientists attempting to elevate their standing. Von Ne umann's work in computer was relatively minor, if not trivial, compared to everything else he did. Same goes for Turing.
Application to the Entscheidungsproblem". It was published in the Proceedin gs of the London Mathematical Society journal in two parts, the first on 30 November and the second on 23 December.[50] In this paper, Turing reformul
formal and simple hypothetical devices that became known as Turing machine s. The Entscheidungsproblem (decision problem) was originally posed by Germ an mathematician David Hilbert in 1928. Turing proved that his "universal c omputing machine" would be capable of performing any conceivable mathematic al computation if it were representable as an algorithm. He went on to prov e that there was no solution to the decision problem by first showing that the halting problem for Turing machines is undecidable: it is not possible to decide algorithmically whether a Turing machine will ever halt. This pap er has been called "easily the most influential math paper in history".
ished the same result marginally earlier, but his paper was a lot less acce ssible and much less influential.
nd of people you seem to favor. Turing's proof was a joke and a failure.
ng was human - and it has been tidied up since it was first published. Fred Bloggs does like making this kind of claim which really is horse manure.
If he had to resubmit it three times and it still wasn't right, that makes it a joke and a failure.
you're useless.
ar aspect of computer theory had some application in cracking the encoding system embodied in the Enigma machine, which is one more of his reminders t o the rest of us that he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Decidability is not computer theory, it is set theory, a quite distinct and separate field of study.
We're still waiting for you to explain what the hell that had to do with br eaking Enigma codes. You're the one who jumped right in with the sycophant statement about his attempt at proving some decidability theorem, as if it had something to do with encryption.
ering the idiotic questions that he poses.
for the job because of his familiarity with fraktur.
y stage senile dementia.
ause he was a brilliant Cambridge mathematician. The fact that his Ph.D. wo rk at Princeton had involved building three of four stages of an electro-me chanical binary multiplier probably helped him get accepted as useful - the people who brought him in probably wouldn't have been aware of that work, or seen its relevance.
Actually he was quite mediocre compared to some of the people at Cambridge at the time. Looks like the decoding computer used did not require all tha t much brilliance. The Americans independently devised their own computer, not much more needs to be said about it then.
The one decidedly obvious fact that does not require decryption is that you 're kind of on the pathetic side of things, as in mentally challenged.
computer scientists. Nobody calls Von Neumann a computer science except for pretentious computer scientists attempting to elevate their standing. Von Neumann's work in computer was relatively minor, if not trivial, compared t o everything else he did. Same goes for Turing.
n Application to the Entscheidungsproblem". It was published in the Proceed ings of the London Mathematical Society journal in two parts, the first on
30 November and the second on 23 December.[50] In this paper, Turing reform
he formal and simple hypothetical devices that became known as Turing machi nes. The Entscheidungsproblem (decision problem) was originally posed by Ge rman mathematician David Hilbert in 1928. Turing proved that his "universal computing machine" would be capable of performing any conceivable mathemat ical computation if it were representable as an algorithm. He went on to pr ove that there was no solution to the decision problem by first showing tha t the halting problem for Turing machines is undecidable: it is not possibl e to decide algorithmically whether a Turing machine will ever halt. This p aper has been called "easily the most influential math paper in history".
blished the same result marginally earlier, but his paper was a lot less ac cessible and much less influential.
kind of people you seem to favor. Turing's proof was a joke and a failure.
ring was human - and it has been tidied up since it was first published. Fr ed Bloggs does like making this kind of claim which really is horse manure.
s it a joke and a failure.
Fred doesn't seem to have done much refereeing of papers submitted to the p eer-reviewed literature. Even good papers can need quite a bit of tidying u p and clarification, and Turing's paper was ground-breaking, which makes th e the job even more difficult.
, you're useless.
ular aspect of computer theory had some application in cracking the encodin g system embodied in the Enigma machine, which is one more of his reminders to the rest of us that he doesn't know what he is talking about.
nd separate field of study.
Tell the computer science community. It may be a distinct field of study, b ut it isn't a separate one.
breaking Enigma codes. You're the one who jumped right in with the sycophan t statement about his attempt at proving some decidability theorem, as if i t had something to do with encryption.
He succeeded in proving it. I didn't say that it had anything to do with de crypstion. You claim was that Von Neumann's and Turing's work in computer s cience was relatively minor, which doesn't seem to be true - at least for Turing. People tend to distinguish between between the Harvard artchitectur e and the von Neumann architecture in computers, so von Neumann probably wr ote at least one influential paper too.
The fact is that yours mindless pronouncements are frequently wrong, and yo u have a nasty habit of falsely claiming that you were saying something els e when this gets pointed out.
swering the idiotic questions that he poses.
m for the job because of his familiarity with fraktur.
rly stage senile dementia.
ecause he was a brilliant Cambridge mathematician. The fact that his Ph.D. work at Princeton had involved building three of four stages of an electro- mechanical binary multiplier probably helped him get accepted as useful - t he people who brought him in probably wouldn't have been aware of that work , or seen its relevance.
e at the time.
Name one, and tells us why they should have been at Bletchley Park (if they weren't).
iance.
As measured by Fred Bloggs' infallible intellectual photometer.
ds to be said about it then.
There were lots of ways of using mechanical and electrical mechanisms for c omputation, and quite a few different mechanisms got used. Exploiting them to get the answers required wasn't trivial
ou're kind of on the pathetic side of things, as in mentally challenged.
Fred's anxious about this for fairly obvious reasons, and projects his own
- entirely justified - anxieties about his own performance onto other peopl e.
I reckon given the ground breaking nature of the paper it was inevitable that it would require a few iterations of peer review before it was accepted for publication in a pure Mathematics journal.
The halting problem was one of the things that he exploited to very good effect in the Bombe, Colossus and the various other special purpose computers. Once it had a self consistent solution it stopped dead.
Also from Cambridge, Bill Tutte deserves to be better know for his amazing work by hand that broke into the Lorentz cipher structure allowing a machine to be constructed to decode and decrypt that.
formatting link
Also Cambridge mathematician Gordon Welchman who headed up Hut Six (but later gave away a bit too much technical detail in his 1982 book about traffic analysis for GCHQ's liking).
formatting link
NB This doesn't mean that I don't think Turing was a brilliant genius. He was. He did all sorts of interesting things on cellular automata too (mostly by hand). Chemical basis of morphogenesis in 1952.
formatting link
He didn't live long enough to see it gain ground or for the first in vitro chemical reaction showing these properties to make it from Russia to the west. Indeed poor Belousov, discoverer of the BZ reaction had great trouble publishing it because peer reviewers didn't believe him! (and CBA to try out the almost foolproof experimental demo reaction)
ISTR it was the 1990's before a general purpose desktop 60MHz Pentium computer could compete with their purpose built cryptographic machines using patch boards, rotors and valves.
formatting link
There is a rebuilt from various people's recollections now working Colossus reconstruction at Bletchley Park which is certainly worth seeing. Also a fully working Baby Mk 1 machine at Manchester Science Museum reconstructed to celebrate the 70th Anniversary of its birth.
t computer scientists. Nobody calls Von Neumann a computer science except f or pretentious computer scientists attempting to elevate their standing. Vo n Neumann's work in computer was relatively minor, if not trivial, compared to everything else he did. Same goes for Turing.
an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem". It was published in the Proce edings of the London Mathematical Society journal in two parts, the first o n 30 November and the second on 23 December.[50] In this paper, Turing refo
the formal and simple hypothetical devices that became known as Turing mac hines. The Entscheidungsproblem (decision problem) was originally posed by German mathematician David Hilbert in 1928. Turing proved that his "univers al computing machine" would be capable of performing any conceivable mathem atical computation if it were representable as an algorithm. He went on to prove that there was no solution to the decision problem by first showing t hat the halting problem for Turing machines is undecidable: it is not possi ble to decide algorithmically whether a Turing machine will ever halt. This paper has been called "easily the most influential math paper in history".
published the same result marginally earlier, but his paper was a lot less accessible and much less influential.
e kind of people you seem to favor. Turing's proof was a joke and a failure .
Turing was human - and it has been tidied up since it was first published. Fred Bloggs does like making this kind of claim which really is horse manur e.
kes it a joke and a failure.
peer-reviewed literature. Even good papers can need quite a bit of tidying up and clarification, and Turing's paper was ground-breaking, which makes the the job even more difficult.
His failed proof was no such thing, and for you to say otherwise is pure pr etense. You have less mathematical ability than an ape.
ma, you're useless.
icular aspect of computer theory had some application in cracking the encod ing system embodied in the Enigma machine, which is one more of his reminde rs to the rest of us that he doesn't know what he is talking about.
and separate field of study.
but it isn't a separate one.
It has little to no bearing on the decryption machine.
h breaking Enigma codes. You're the one who jumped right in with the sycoph ant statement about his attempt at proving some decidability theorem, as if it had something to do with encryption.
decrypstion. You claim was that Von Neumann's and Turing's work in computer science was relatively minor, which doesn't seem to be true - at least for Turing. People tend to distinguish between between the Harvard artchitectu re and the von Neumann architecture in computers, so von Neumann probably w rote at least one influential paper too.
No one gives a f_ck about the pseudointellectualizing over the so-called Ha rvard and Princeton architectures. It's just a bunch of mindless crap for p eople who can't do a stitch of programming or algorithm development or oper ating system design. Compared to what would come later, contributions by bo th Turing and Von Neumann were minor to non-existent. You're too stupid to understand that Princeton IAS only recruited Von Neuman into the argument s o they could sell their machine to the War Department.
you have a nasty habit of falsely claiming that you were saying something e lse when this gets pointed out.
And this conclusion coming from a proven moron like you. Age has caused you r IQ to decline below the level of moron. You're not only ignorant, but you 're too stupid to realize just how ignorant, and you can't learn anything n ew anymore.
answering the idiotic questions that he poses.
him for the job because of his familiarity with fraktur.
early stage senile dementia.
because he was a brilliant Cambridge mathematician. The fact that his Ph.D . work at Princeton had involved building three of four stages of an electr o-mechanical binary multiplier probably helped him get accepted as useful - the people who brought him in probably wouldn't have been aware of that wo rk, or seen its relevance.
dge at the time.
ey weren't).
lliance.
eeds to be said about it then.
computation, and quite a few different mechanisms got used. Exploiting the m to get the answers required wasn't trivial
Mechanisms for computation was a very well established field by that time. And there were lots of people who could go right to it putting the encrypt ion together once it's basic specification for operation was conceived- mos t assuredly iteratively between the theorists and the practitioners. Of cou rse your reaction to the whole thing is very much ape-like because ...well. .. because that's just where you're coming from. I'm sure the original desi gners would be less than inspired by your admiration.
you're kind of on the pathetic side of things, as in mentally challenged.
n - entirely justified - anxieties about his own performance onto other peo ple.
Donald Knuth (at Stanford) rejects the term 'computer science'. He calls himself a mathematician, who specializes in finite arithmetic, an area neglected by traditional math, which considers as trivial anything less than the infinite.
Science involves investigation of nature. Which doesn't characterize 'computer science' - it can be considered as a branch of logic.
That's not right. Sales was talking about his "simulation" of the decoding rotor machine. Who knows what he was doing. String processing? That is NOT a study of the GP against the electromechanical computer.
not computer scientists. Nobody calls Von Neumann a computer science except for pretentious computer scientists attempting to elevate their standing. Von Neumann's work in computer was relatively minor, if not trivial, compar ed to everything else he did. Same goes for Turing.
th an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem". It was published in the Pro ceedings of the London Mathematical Society journal in two parts, the first on 30 November and the second on 23 December.[50] In this paper, Turing re
th the formal and simple hypothetical devices that became known as Turing m achines. The Entscheidungsproblem (decision problem) was originally posed b y German mathematician David Hilbert in 1928. Turing proved that his "unive rsal computing machine" would be capable of performing any conceivable math ematical computation if it were representable as an algorithm. He went on t o prove that there was no solution to the decision problem by first showing that the halting problem for Turing machines is undecidable: it is not pos sible to decide algorithmically whether a Turing machine will ever halt. Th is paper has been called "easily the most influential math paper in history ".
y published the same result marginally earlier, but his paper was a lot les s accessible and much less influential.
the kind of people you seem to favor. Turing's proof was a joke and a failu re.
- Turing was human - and it has been tidied up since it was first published . Fred Bloggs does like making this kind of claim which really is horse man ure.
makes it a joke and a failure.
he peer-reviewed literature. Even good papers can need quite a bit of tidyi ng up and clarification, and Turing's paper was ground-breaking, which make s the the job even more difficult.
pretense. You have less mathematical ability than an ape.
Fred does go in for these unsupported claims, based on an authority he hasn 't got. The idea that Turing's proof was a failure is bizarre, and the prop osition that an are could ahve got through fist and second year pure math a t university is even stranger.
igma, you're useless.
rticular aspect of computer theory had some application in cracking the enc oding system embodied in the Enigma machine, which is one more of his remin ders to the rest of us that he doesn't know what he is talking about.
ct and separate field of study.
y, but it isn't a separate one.
And nobody claimed that it had. Fred has a habit of injecting these nonsens e statements into the discussion.
ith breaking Enigma codes. You're the one who jumped right in with the syco phant statement about his attempt at proving some decidability theorem, as if it had something to do with encryption.
h decryption. You claim was that Von Neumann's and Turing's work in compute r science was relatively minor, which doesn't seem to be true - at least fo r Turing. People tend to distinguish between between the Harvard artchitect ure and the von Neumann architecture in computers, so von Neumann probably wrote at least one influential paper too.
Harvard and Princeton architectures. It's just a bunch of mindless crap for people who can't do a stitch of programming or algorithm development or op erating system design.
And the world is even less interested in Fred Blogg's opinion on the subjec t - he does post the most ridiculous nonsense when he tries to pose as some body who knows what they are talking about.
eumann were minor to non-existent.
Rather like Newton's. Getting the ball rolling isn't a negligible contribut ion.
man into the argument so they could sell their machine to the War Departmen t.
Why would I have bothered to find out? Von Neumann was well-known, and his star power would have helped, but it may not have been the only reason he w as brought in.
d you have a nasty habit of falsely claiming that you were saying something else when this gets pointed out.
Fred Bloggs seems to confuse his firmly held delusions with some kind of cl early laid out proof, which is not something he has ever posted.
Whereas you know that "highly conserved" means "doesn't mutate", and can't learn that you've got it wrong.
ant, and you can't learn anything new anymore.
Like I said, Fred Bloggs has real - and justified - anxieties about his dec lining mental performance and projects them onto anybody who disagrees with his demented pontifications.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.