Re: Kuzari Proof Discussion


Ken Bloom wrote:
> q_q_anonymous@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Martin Winer wrote:
> >
> >>:One could similarly argue that this proves the medrashic claims about
> >>the
> >>:exodus -- that manna is "totally consumed" (ie people living on manna
> >>:wouldn't defecate), their clothing wouldn't wear out, etc... It would
> >>:disprove a natural trek through the desert, but that's not the claim.
> >>
> >>Which came first the explanation or the challenge? I strongly suspect
> >>that the entire talmud is a theological cleanup operation. If this
> >>explanation had been written into the Torah, I'd be far more likely to
> >>believe your statements to be an explanation rather than an a
> >>posteriori modification.
> >>
> >>:Except that the Kuzari didn't actually give this proof. In that, one
> >>of
> >>:the points of the book is the limitations of philsophical proofs!
> >>
> >>It would seem the limitation lies with the (Kuzari) author, not with
> >>philosophy.
> >
> >
> > You are not familiar with the kuzari, neither are you familiar with
> > philosophy. You are familiar with some formal logic or natural
> > deduction, "when A happens, B happens. I believe A, so I conclude B".
> > Great fun, using letters and symbols to give basic arguments. May be
> > helpful WAY into the future of computer science if these techniques are
> > ever used to prove the correctness of algorithms.
>
> There are techniques for doing this now, but they're either in the
> research stage or they're so cumbersome that they're only used for high
> assurance systems like NASA's software, or the microcode inside
> microprocessors. (We would hope they would do this for voting machines,
> but I don't think they do).
>
> Or perhaps they teach
> > it to make computer science appear a little more mathematical or
> > scientific. But that 1 little module in formal logic (the best bit of
> > the degree?) won't help you here!!
>
> We couldn't program if we couldn't do complicated mathematical
> reasoning. Maybe it's true that we don't have very many classes
> specifically in it, but that's because it's more of a skill involving
> practice.
>
> Don't knock CS.
>

I don't mean to knock CS as being rubbish. On the contrary. Writing
algorithms and programming are too difficult for most people(just like
accountancy is prob too difficult for most people), CS requires a mind
capable of basic logic and it requires an attention to detail. But, CS
isn't going to help him here. He seems to think that CS has prepared
him well for his current endeavour. Evidently it hasn't.

That is not a limitation of CS. The only thing i'll say about CS
that might but shouldn't be considered a knock, but i'm sure many would
agree with me. It's not a Science at all , and it's not very
mathematical. Not knocking it for that. Many very good clever
mathematicians can't do it at all.

I don't think programming requires complicated mathematical reasoning
at all. It's just naturally breaking problems down and doesn't require
any prerequisite maths knowledge. Some ppl can do it, some can't. I
don't think the coding of the program is so hard 'cos people use a
debugger. But, many - smart or dumb - people can't program at all, and
it does require basic logic and attention to detail, so I don't intend
to knock it. Just to say that it won't help him here. The logic LEARNT
in CS - formal logic - (at least in an UG course) has been known to
mortal man and some of it even known to animals for years - just not
written in symbols.
The difficulty and skill learnt, is writing it in symbols. But that
skill isn't relevant here!


q_q_

.

Relevant Pages