Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
Recent publicity about social media algorithms has, I believe, left
the general population with a misunderstanding of the meaning of
"algorithm". They don't know what the word means, but they have
the general impression that it refers to something evil.
That is a lost battle, by now. And indeed, 'algorithms' can be, and
therefore are evil, when applied for example by state agencies to discriminate.
We did have a longish discussion on 'algorithm, while Jerry still
here. He favoured an even stricter definition, due to Donald Knuth,
which restricts 'algorithm' even further, to processes which are
known to end in a finite number of steps,
Jan (I disagreed)
AFAIK all this 'quantum conciousness' nonsense
originates with a joke by Wigner about Schroedinger's cat.
On 10/06/2026 11:45, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
On 09/06/26 19:55, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2026-06-09, Peter Moylan wrote:
Similarly, in social media we seek the company of those whose
opinions agree with our own prejudices.
And social media algorithms are generally designed to do that
anyway.
Just recently my wife asked my for a definition of "algorithm". Someone
had told her it meant "recipe", and I confirmed that that was a pretty
good definition. I supplemented that with a textbook reference to
Euclid's algorithm for finding the greatest common divisor of two
numbers. I doubt that she understood the algorithm, but that doesn't
matter. She did understand that the word didn't refer to a specific
recipe for a particular kind of cake, but had a wider meaning.
Recent publicity about social media algorithms has, I believe, left the
general population with a misunderstanding of the meaning of
"algorithm". They don't know what the word means, but they have the
general impression that it refers to something evil.
That is a lost battle, by now.
And indeed, 'algorithms' can be, and therefore are evil,
when applied for example by state agencies to discriminate.
We did have a longish discussion on 'algorithm,
while Jerry still here.
He favoured an even stricter definition, due to Donald Knuth,
which restricts 'algorithm' even further,
to processes which are known to end in a finite number of steps,
Jan
(I disagreed)
I agree with your disagreement. How else would one explain recursive algorithms?
He favoured an even stricter definition, due to Donald Knuth,
which restricts 'algorithm' even further,
to processes which are known to end in a finite number of steps,
In article <1rwhj4c.181jfp710ozus7N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>,
J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
He favoured an even stricter definition, due to Donald Knuth,
which restricts 'algorithm' even further,
to processes which are known to end in a finite number of steps,
That might be a handy defence against any laws regulating the use of >algorithms. Can we expect juries to prove that a process terminates?
Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
So in the era of the enlightenment, 350 years since Newton and
Leibniz, the score is:
Monads: 1 [entanglement]
Atoms: All the rest of physics research
???
Monads and entanglement have nothing to do with each other, afaics.
BTW, are you aware that in modern mathematics
the Newton approach to the calculus (without monads)
and Leibniz' approach (with monads and differentials)
have been shown to be completely equivalent?
(it is called non-standard analysis)
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 39:32:43 |
| Calls: | 948 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 280,644 |