Re: A Definition of an Algorithm

On 21 Feb 2006 14:59:20 -0800, "noson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<noson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:


Lester Zick wrote:
It occurs to me that there are two things wrong with this definition.
The first is seemingly endemic to modern forms of definition: you just
define an algorithm as an algorithm without defining what algorithms
are. In other words your definition is a truism; it's circular and
fails to define the subject in exhaustive terms. Even if you were to
substitute another expression such as "an algorithm is a series of
steps" as a definition it still wouldn't tell us what a "series of
steps" or "algorithm" actually mean in mechanically exhaustive terms.


From my paper:

"We shall define an algorithm analogously to the way that Gottlob Frege

defined a natural number.
Basically Frege says
that that the number 42 is the equivalence class of all sets of size
42. He looks at the set of all finite sets and
makes an equivalence relation. Two finite sets are equivalent if there
is a one-to-one onto function from one
set to the other. The set of all equivalence classes under this
equivalence relation forms the set of natural numbers.
For us, an algorithm is an equivalence class of programs. Two
programs are part of the same equivalence class if they are
``essentially'' the same."

You know this is really too stupid for words. For you the equivalence
class of all idiots if there is a one-to-one onto function from one
set to the other is the equivalence class of all idiots.

One might say that Frege's defintion is circular because he would say
that "42 is the equivalence relation of all sets of size 42". But he is

not really doing that. Frege is defining the SET of natural numbers.
Not one particular natural number. So too, I am defining the SET
(actually category) of
algorithms. Not one particular algorithm.

Yeah well good luck with that. Do let us know when you figure out what
an algorithm is.

The second objection is more general. You use the phrase "set of all
programs" to define algorithm just the way modern mathematikers use
the phrase "set of all points" to define mathematical objects. But the
problem is mathematical definitions of this form implicitly assume
what they are supposedly defining. For example the conventional
modern mathematical definition for a circle runs "set of all points on
a plane equidistant from any point on the same plane" which is
functionally equivalent to saying a circle is the "set of all points
on a circle" since there is no non geometric point definition for
planes, equidistance, etc.


I have something very very concreate when I talk about programs.
Equivalence classes of these very concreate things form algorithms.
You might want to look at the paper.

Why would I want to look at a paper which doesn't define algorithms,
programs, or concrete?

You can probably just use these expressions colloquially to designate
series of steps, programs, or whatever as long as you don't try to use
such terms in categorically exhaustive terms. Unfortunately it looks
exactly like you're trying to impute some categorical significance to
these kinds of ideas below. Saying various things involve algorithms
doesn't say anything new.

"series of steps" etc is very vaugue. An alchomists also does a series
of steps.

"Series of steps" may be very vague. It just forms a much clearer one
to one equivalence class with those who can spell than junior varsity
essayists.

Dan, Glen, and a host of others routinely bemoan stale epigrammatic
character of arguments found on these groups.If this is any indication
of alternatives I'd vastly prefer Curt's labored tomes to this kind of
pretentious sophmoric nonsense. At least Curt doesn't really think he
knows what he's talking about.

~v~~

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A Definition of an Algorithm
    ... implement or express that algorithm. ... partitioned into equivalence classes. ... the set of primitive recursive functions is considered. ... As to your irrelevant comments about trees versus programs as linear ...
    (sci.math.research)
  • Re: Algorithm to determine matrix similarity
    ... After that I was told the sorting trick ... my correspondence K:->which satisfies ... I thought I understood your proposed algorithm and implemented ... equivalence relationships. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: A Definition of an Algorithm
    ... The first is seemingly endemic to modern forms of definition: ... define an algorithm as an algorithm without defining what algorithms ... that that the number 42 is the equivalence class of all sets of size ... programs" to define algorithm just the way modern mathematikers use ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: A Definition of an Algorithm
    ... Towards a Definition of an Algorithm ... partitioned into equivalence classes. ... the set of primitive recursive functions is considered. ... say when two such trees are ``essentially'' the same. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: A Definition of an Algorithm
    ... Its is similar to the way Frege defined a number. ... the equivalence class of sets that have 42 elements in them. ... I too am not defining ONE algorithm. ... An algorithm is the set of programs that impliment it. ...
    (sci.math.research)