Jamest, I offer you serious discussion

[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.

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!

Rubbish. As I said, you should understand Set Theory enough to see why this is bollocks. "Computer programs" is a SUBSET of the informal definition, not the totality of it.

You really are a shit debater, Rev.

Get fucked. You're the one who gave up and claimed I was just "lalala'ing". I'm giving reasoned arguments as to why your rebuttals are wrong. Like the one above with Set Theory, you are undeniably wrong, yet somehow you wind up with the conclusion that I am a shit debater.

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!

Bullshit. You asked for a quote, I gave you one that fits. That wasn't enough for you. It's you who isn't changing their view. As I said, the fact that you haven't encountered algorithm used in this fashion isn't a cogent rebuttal of anything. You might claim that's shit debating, but I'd challenge you to refute the logic of that. I can guarantee you I will outdo you in logic almost every time. Show your work, bigshot.

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!

[/quote]

It's you who wants a philosophical debate. I've used a common definition of "algorithm" and backed it up with a quote from the most common source on the internet. It's you who is arguing underwater.

[pErvinalia]

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...

Yeah, under one (strict) definition of "algorithm". Under another it is simply a description of the steps involved in a deterministic process.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Some physical events may well happen in a precise sequence,

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

Yes, let's just skip all that quantum stuff. It's fiddly and just gets in the way. Newton was good enough for Isembard Kingdom Brunel so it's bloody well good enough for me!

The trouble is, that when you get right down to it. I mean right down, below the stuff you just think is pretty deep, down to where the real, scary, obscenely deep shit is. When you get down there, it's ALL quantums. There's nothing else. And they are all doing a freaky, random probability dance that cannot be predicted at all, except as the cumulative effect of enormous numbers of such interactions. Every time you fire a proton around the LHC, you get a different pattern in the detectors. There is no algorithm at that level. No pattern. No predictability. Not until you start adding up the cumulative effects.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

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...

Yeah, under one (strict) definition of "algorithm". Under another it is simply a description of the steps involved in a deterministic process.

See my last post. Physical laws are NOT a deterministic process. They are governed by quantum randomness at every level. Any perceived determinism is the illusory result of the normalisation of multiple random events.

[pErvinalia]

Some physical events may well happen in a precise sequence,

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

Yes, let's just skip all that quantum stuff. It's fiddly and just gets in the way. Newton was good enough for Isembard Kingdom Brunel so it's bloody well good enough for me!

The trouble is, that when you get right down to it. I mean right down, below the stuff you just think is pretty deep, down to where the real, scary, obscenely deep shit is. When you get down there, it's ALL quantums. There's nothing else. And they are all doing a freaky, random probability dance that cannot be predicted at all, except as the cumulative effect of enormous numbers of such interactions. Every time you fire a proton around the LHC, you get a different pattern in the detectors. There is no algorithm at that level. No pattern. No predictability. Not until you start adding up the cumulative effects.

Which is the macro level.

[pErvinalia]

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...

Yeah, under one (strict) definition of "algorithm". Under another it is simply a description of the steps involved in a deterministic process.

See my last post. Physical laws are NOT a deterministic process. They are governed by quantum randomness at every level. Any perceived determinism is the illusory result of the normalisation of multiple random events.

See my last post.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

And your definition of algorithm is still bollocks.

Here is a far better one. One that clearly does not apply to physical laws.

Algorithm: A finite set of unambiguous instructions that, given some set of initial conditions, can be performed in a prescribed sequence to achieve a certain goal and that has a recognizable set of end conditions.

[pErvinalia]

Who said it's "better"?? God? Shit debater accuser, heal thyself!!

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Who said it's "better"?? God? Shit debater accuser, heal thyself!!

It's better because it comes from a dictionary rather than just being part of a misunderstood quote.

[pErvinalia]

You still don't understand set-theory. Come on Mr Master-debater, prove how that quote means what you think it means. Stop declaring bald assertions like I'm a "shit debater" or this definition is "better" than another. Show your working.

[pErvinalia]

To put it even more clearly for you, it doesn't matter if one definition is "better" than another by whatever standard you happen to choose to suit your argument. What matters is that my definition is valid, and therefore your rebuttals are entirely misplaced. As I said, that you are unaware of a common use of a term isn't a refutation of anything.

[JimC]

To put it even more clearly for you, it doesn't matter if one definition is "better" than another by whatever standard you happen to choose to suit your argument. What matters is that my definition is valid, and therefore your rebuttals are entirely misplaced. As I said, that you are unaware of a common use of a term isn't a refutation of anything.

I have never, ever read anything that interprets algorithm in any other way than a finite series of defined steps to achieve a clearly understood goal, certainly not as a description of a series of physical processes. You are broadening the use of the word beyond accepted usage, which simply means you are using it in a sense that will not be useful in a discussion where participants need to have terms they can all agree on...

[pErvinalia]

That's probably because you are a mathematician. And once again, the fact you haven't heard of it isn't a refutation of anything.

But if it helps, I'll try and think up another term to describe it. Not that I feel particularly inclined to do so, as James' idea of "serious discussion" is apparently using arbitrary definitions to debunk actual phenomena. If that's his level of "serious", then it's probably not worth going much further...

[JimC]

Some physical events may well happen in a precise sequence,

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

Yes, let's just skip all that quantum stuff. It's fiddly and just gets in the way. Newton was good enough for Isembard Kingdom Brunel so it's bloody well good enough for me!

The trouble is, that when you get right down to it. I mean right down, below the stuff you just think is pretty deep, down to where the real, scary, obscenely deep shit is. When you get down there, it's ALL quantums. There's nothing else. And they are all doing a freaky, random probability dance that cannot be predicted at all, except as the cumulative effect of enormous numbers of such interactions. Every time you fire a proton around the LHC, you get a different pattern in the detectors. There is no algorithm at that level. No pattern. No predictability. Not until you start adding up the cumulative effects.

However, the pattern that emerges from the stochastic processes is often amenable to surprisingly simple mathematical laws, which are vital parts of our collective ability to predict future events to quite extraordinary levels of accuracy. This deep connection between random events at the micro level, and predictable patterns at the macro level is one of the true triumphs of modern science...

[JimC]

That's probably because you are a mathematician. And once again, the fact you haven't heard of it isn't a refutation of anything.

But if it helps, I'll try and think up another term to describe it. Not that I feel particularly inclined to do so, as James' idea of "serious discussion" is apparently using arbitrary definitions to debunk actual phenomena. If that's his level of "serious", then it's probably not worth going much further...

Then we simply need to spend some serous effort in nailing down our definitions...

And I'll have you know I'm not merely a mathematician - I am a physicist, an evolutionary theorist, and an expert in gin!