Jamest, I offer you serious discussion

[laklak]

Al Gore got no rhythm, man.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

An informal definition could be "a set of rules that precisely defines a sequence of operations."[14]

"Algorithm" has a meaning outside of a strict mathematical context. If we were to limit it to mathematics, then yes, a description of the deterministic process of physical laws wouldn't be an algorithm. But informally, it is. It's basically just a set of instructions describing a process. Which is what a physical law is (as formalised by humans). It describes a process of change from one state to another. In the case of an apple it describes the process of change from being attached to the tree to falling to the ground.

Edit: unless we deal in the probabilistic like Hack mentioned earlier, in which case it wouldn't be a "precise" definition, I guess.

So who, or what, is running the algorithm in your case, Rev?

And I think the time has come to ask you for a citation. Please find some reference to back up your extension of "algorithm" to include physical laws. Because it is WAY beyond what anyone I know (other than you, right now, because you hate being wrong) would ever consider to be an algorithm.

[pErvinalia]

You don't need someone running a "set of rules that precisely defines a sequence of operations". Nowhere in that definition does there need to be a who or what running it.

Regarding citations, I've given you a definition that covers the concept of physical laws as algorithms. I've agreed that this doesn't apply to the strict mathematical/computer-science definition of an algorithm. I'm not sure what more you could want.

Either way, this is a red-herring, as a definitional disagreement doesn't lend any credence to James' faulty logic in arriving at "therefore God". You can call the process of biological replication by DNA whatever you want. The sounds/words you use won't change the fact that it doesn't require a creator/designer to occur. It is defined first by its phenomena, and then secondly by man-made terms.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

You don't need someone running a "set of rules that precisely defines a sequence of operations". Nowhere in that definition does there need to be a who or what running it.

It's not a rule if it just happens anyway. It only becomes a rule when some agent needs to take action based upon the instructions for a particular event.

Regarding citations, I've given you a definition that covers the concept of physical laws as algorithms. I've agreed that this doesn't apply to the strict mathematical/computer-science definition of an algorithm. I'm not sure what more you could want.

You've given me a definition that appears to have been pulled directly from rectal-space as I am unable to find anything as nebulous and vague anywhere credible. Hence my request for SOURCE!

Either way, this is a red-herring, as a definitional disagreement doesn't lend any credence to James' faulty logic in arriving at "therefore God". You can call the process of biological replication by DNA whatever you want. The sounds/words you use won't change the fact that it doesn't require a creator/designer to occur. It is defined first by its phenomena, and then secondly by man-made terms.

I don't care about his argument. I am pointing out a faulty claim in yours. Either fix it or show that it is not necessary for the integrity of your argument - that's a key step in the "logical debate algorithm".

[pErvinalia]

You don't need someone running a "set of rules that precisely defines a sequence of operations". Nowhere in that definition does there need to be a who or what running it.

It's not a rule if it just happens anyway. It only becomes a rule when some agent needs to take action based upon the instructions for a particular event.

Well this is just enough semantic issue. Sure, rules can be set by people. But they don't need to be. I'm using "rule" in the sense of something that can't be broken and must be followed. Physical laws can't be broken and are followed at all times. Hence they are rules defining nature.

Regarding citations, I've given you a definition that covers the concept of physical laws as algorithms. I've agreed that this doesn't apply to the strict mathematical/computer-science definition of an algorithm. I'm not sure what more you could want.

You've given me a definition that appears to have been pulled directly from rectal-space...

It came from wikipedia, as I stated. Here's the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm# ... definition. I didn't link it, because to me this is a common definition of algorithm. You being a mathematical autistic poopy head and not aware of this, isn't really my problem.

Either way, this is a red-herring, as a definitional disagreement doesn't lend any credence to James' faulty logic in arriving at "therefore God". You can call the process of biological replication by DNA whatever you want. The sounds/words you use won't change the fact that it doesn't require a creator/designer to occur. It is defined first by its phenomena, and then secondly by man-made terms.

I don't care about his argument. I am pointing out a faulty claim in yours. Either fix it or show that it is not necessary for the integrity of your argument - that's a key step in the "logical debate algorithm".

I don't care about your argument. Either suck me off or suck yourself off...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

You clearly didn't read that definition very well, Rev.

An informal definition could be "a set of rules that precisely defines a sequence of operations." which would include all computer programs, including programs that do not perform numeric calculations. Generally, a program is only an algorithm if it stops eventually.

You conveniently missed out most of that definition and failed to seek out the reference given - the footnote in wikipedia says...

Stone, Harold S. (1972). Introduction to Computer Organization and Data Structures (1972 ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York. ISBN 0-07-061726-0. Cf. in particular the first chapter titled: Algorithms, Turing Machines, and Programs. His succinct informal definition: "...any sequence of instructions that can be obeyed by a robot, is called an algorithm"

So, he certainly wouldn't claim that "any physical process" is algorithmic, due to the lack of an agent, or robot. Find another source.

[pErvinalia]

You clearly didn't read that definition very well, Rev.

An informal definition could be "a set of rules that precisely defines a sequence of operations." which would include all computer programs, including programs that do not perform numeric calculations. Generally, a program is only an algorithm if it stops eventually.

You conveniently missed out most of that definition

The rest of the definition doesn't change anything. You being a mathematical autistic poopy head should understand enough set theory to know that.

and failed to seek out the reference given - the footnote in wikipedia says...

Stone, Harold S. (1972). Introduction to Computer Organization and Data Structures (1972 ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York. ISBN 0-07-061726-0. Cf. in particular the first chapter titled: Algorithms, Turing Machines, and Programs. His succinct informal definition: "...any sequence of instructions that can be obeyed by a robot, is called an algorithm"

So, he certainly wouldn't claim that "any physical process" is algorithmic, due to the lack of an agent, or robot. Find another source.

Well, we'd both have to read the actual source in more depth than one line to confirm who is more right or wrong on this issue. Assuming the wiki editor has read the full source and created an accurate summation of his argument, then I am right (cognisant of the qualification about probabilistic processes). Wiki isn't a formal peer-reviewed process, so we are under no real compulsion to accept it as an accurate summation. But I will until you come up with something refuting that. Half a sentence, second hand, isn't a refutation.

[JimC]

I am a landlord, actually. My tenant pays on time, so I'm not bitter at all...

Then whence cometh the bitter notion that giving credit is a risky business? You've said that twice tonight (UK time), so I know for sure that you've been stung [badly] before.

No, I just like rather silly puns and word games...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

All I am hearing from you, Rev is

You are wrong. You even know it, deep down, but you will never admit it. So I will leave you to twitch and glare and throw out half-coherent, "I AM right!"s and "How dare he!"s while I go look for funny pictures of cats.

[piscator]

And now a word from another crimpy rigid tool...

[pErvinalia]

All I am hearing from you, Rev is

You are wrong. You even know it, deep down, but you will never admit it. So I will leave you to twitch and glare and throw out half-coherent, "I AM right!"s and "How dare he!"s while I go look for funny pictures of cats.

I'm not wrong, though. The definition in wiki is what I have been saying. That you've never heard the term "algorithm" used like that isn't a counter-argument.

[JimC]

Totally with XC here, rEv. Using the term algorithm in the way you used it adds not one thing to your argument with jamest: in fact, it almost invites a deistic explanation, in terms of the great programmer in the sky...

Some physical events may well happen in a precise sequence, but not because they are listed sets of instructions, but simply because their internal laws make the sequence inevitable. Many other physical processes are much more stochastic in nature - the mixing of 2 different gases in a container does not follow a linear series of steps, for example.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

All I am hearing from you, Rev is

You are wrong. You even know it, deep down, but you will never admit it. So I will leave you to twitch and glare and throw out half-coherent, "I AM right!"s and "How dare he!"s while I go look for funny pictures of cats.

I'm not wrong, though. The definition in wiki is what I have been saying. That you've never heard the term "algorithm" used like that isn't a counter-argument.

You didn't understand the definition given in Wiki. The point being made there was that, while an algorithm could informally refer to any computer program, the strict definition was that the program had to complete in a finite number of steps. You simply grabbed a few words from that passage and made a semantic soup out of it, asserting (with no further evidence) that it meant what you thought it meant!

You really are a shit debater, Rev. You need to be right on every point so much that you don't change your tack when new evidence presents, or when old evidence is shown in a new light. You'd make a fine theist!

If you really want a philosophical debate on the precise definition of "algorithm", pick the bones out of this page! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm ... erizations Just don't ask me to join you. The stuff I did in Number Theory and Computer Theory was plenty for a lifetime!

[pErvinalia]

Totally with XC here, rEv. Using the term algorithm in the way you used it adds not one thing to your argument with jamest: in fact, it almost invites a deistic explanation, in terms of the great programmer in the sky...

It's not intended to add anything. He asked me for a term other than "code", and I gave it. As I said to XC before, it doesn't really matter what you call it, the process is defined first and exclusively by the phenomenon. And the phenomenon doesn't require a god or creator/designer.

Some physical events may well happen in a precise sequence,

They all happen in a precise sequence, notwithstanding quantum probabilistic events.

but not because they are listed sets of instructions, but simply because their internal laws make the sequence inevitable.

The problem for you is that I can use the same argument back at you. "Laws" are written by man. So who told nature it had to follow laws?? See the silliness in trying to refute a concept based on arbitrary definitions? The definitions are secondary to the phenomenon. The phenomenon of biological replication can be summarised by one particular definition of "algorithm". That you and XC don't accept this definition isn't really a refutation of anything.

Many other physical processes are much more stochastic in nature - the mixing of 2 different gases in a container does not follow a linear series of steps, for example.

Isn't that chaotic behaviour? Chaos is still deterministic.

[JimC]

There is a precise sequence of mathematical steps, involving only the 4 standard operations, which will divide any polynomial in x by a linear expression in x, leaving a polynomial one degree lower plus an algebraic fraction (which may equal zero if the linear expression is a factor of the polynomial)

The philosophical question is whether such an algorithm existed before it was first discovered/used by a mathematician?

In one sense, at least, it did exist - it was true that in the stone age, those sequence of steps would have done the job, if used. In contrast, it is certainly correct to say that Westminster Cathedral did not exist in any sense 10,000 years ago.

However, one gets the sense that there is something special about the initial use, or perhaps the first formal recording of the steps involved; one could regard this as the first instantiation of that algorithm as a working meme...